PRINCETON,    N.    J. 


'% 


S/ielf. 


..,.4...\i.^.5- 

• &.o.t^.>|...:^ 


Sec/2  on . 


Number. 


n^,, 


K/J- 


THE  MOSAIC  ORIGIN 


PENTATEUCHAL  CODES. 

BY 

GEERHARDUS  ''VOS, 

FELLOW    OF    PRINXETOX    THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY. 
WITH  AX  IXTRODUCTIOX  BY 

PROFESSOR   WILLIAM   HENRY    GREEN. 


NEW  YORK: 
A.    C.    ARMSTRONG    &    SON, 

714   BROADWAY. 
1886. 


Copyright,  i8S6, 
By  a.  C,  ARMSTRONG  &  SON. 


ELECTROTYPED   AND   PRINTED 

BY    RAND,    AVERY,   AND    COMPANY, 

BOSTON. 


INTRODUCTION. 


THE  author  of  the  following  treatise  is  descended  from 
the  French  Huguenots.  The  original  name  of  the 
family  was  Vosse,  and  his  ancestors  were  among  the  refugees 
who  emigrated  to  Holland  after  the  revocation  of  the  Edict 
of  Nantes.  He  received  his  literary  training  in  the  gymna- 
sium at  Amsterdam  ;  and  after  completing  his  theological 
course  at  the  Seminary  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Holland, 
at  Grand  Rapids,  Mich.,  of  which  his  father  is  a  professor, 
he  spent  two  additional  years  at  Princeton  Seminary.  This 
treatise  was  prepared  as  a  thesis  in  competition  for  the 
Hebrew  fellowship  in  the  latter  insdtution,  which  was 
awarded  to  him  ;  and  he  is  now  pursuing  his  studies  at  the 
University  of  Berlin. 

The  subject  discussed  is  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  laws  of 
the  Pentateuch.  This  is  the  point  about  which  the  critical 
batde  is  raging  at  present.  The  literary  partition  of  the 
Pentateuch,  which  at  one  time  stood  in  the  fore-front  of  the 
fray,  is  now  on  all  hands  regarded  as  a  side  issue,  of  whose 
results  the  critics  of  the  most  recent  school  of  Graf,  Kuenen, 
and  Wellhausen  still  seek  to  avail  themselves,  but  upon 
which  they  do  not  mainly  rest  their  cause.  This  part  of 
the  question  is  taken  up  and  disposed  of  at  the  outset. 
The  position  maintained  is  perfecdy  tenable,  though  it  has 
not  heretofore  been  pressed  as  it  deserves.  The  divisibility 
of  Genesis,  or,  as  the  critics  phrase  it,  the  literary  analysis 
of  that  book,  does  not  in  the   slightest  degree  affect   the 


IV  INTRODUCTION. 

question  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  or  of 
the  laws  which  the  Pentateuch  contains.  And  unless  it  be 
pressed  to  the  extent  of  finding  mutually  inconsistent  nar- 
ratives in  Genesis,  and  thus  impugning  the  truth  of  the 
record  and  the  trustworthiness  of  the  history,  the  hypothesis 
is  one  of  purely  literary  interest,  and  of  no  theological  conse- 
quence. It  is  only  the  endeavor  to  carry  the  divisive  hy- 
pothesis through  the  subsequent  books  of  the  Pentateuch, 
that  imperils  the  ascription  of  the  legislation  to  Moses,  as 
well  as  of  the  volume  in  which  the  legislation  is  found.  If 
Chronicles  and  Kings  could  be  compiled  from  antecedent 
authentic  records  w^idiout  prejudice  to  their  canonicity,  the 
same  is  obviously  true  of  Genesis,  the  latest  limit  of  whose 
history  is  almost  three  centuries  prior  to  the  birth  of  Moses. 

But,  if  the  same  analysis  is  applicable  to  the  books  from 
Exodus  onward,  the  aspect  of  the  case  is  materially  changed. 
It  is  indeed  conceivable  that  Moses  might  have  employed 
different  amanuenses  to  record  different  classes  of  laws, 
and  that  the  literary  form  of  the  laws  might  thus  vary  to 
some  extent  in  consequence.  But  if  the  later  books  of  the 
Pentateuch,  containing  the  life  and  the  legislation  of  Moses, 
have  been  compiled  from  distinct  documents  in  the  sense 
maintained  by  the  advocates  of  this  hypothesis,  it  is  difficult 
to  imagine  that  Moses  could  have  had  any  thing  to  do  with 
the  compilation.  Accordingly,  waiving  all  discussion  as  to 
the  api:»licability  of  the  hypothesis  to  Genesis,  its  right  is 
challenged  to  proceed  beyond  Exod.  vi.  3,  where  God  re- 
vealed himself  to  Moses  as  Jehovah,  and  this  henceforth 
becomes  the  predominant  name  of  the  Most  High  ;  and  the 
barrenness  of  the  unsupported  linguistic  argument  for  any 
division  beyond  that  point  is  shown. 

It  would  have  been  better,  perhaps,  to  put  the  line  of 
demarcation  at  the  opening  of  the  Book  of  Exodus.  For 
the   alternc^tion    of  di\ine    names    is    not  only  of  no    help 


IN  TR  on  UC  TIOiV.  V 

to  the  critics  in  Exod.  i.  i-vi.  3,  but  is  a  source  of  con- 
stant perplexity,  wliich  they  escape  only  by  conspicuously 
disregarding  it.  It  did  not  belong  to  the  subject  treated 
in  this  volume,  to  deal  with  the  partition  of  the  historical 
sections  of  Exodus.  But  I  think  that  no  one  can  carefully 
examine  the  division  of  Exod.  i.-xi.,  as  wrought  out  by 
Wellhausen,  or  by  others  who  attempt  a  similar  nice  dis- 
crimination, without  feeling  at  every  step  that  the  attempt 
to  carry  the  partition  through  is  a  signal  failure.  The  per- 
plexity of  the  scherne  rendered  necessary  by  the  rigorous 
application  of  critical  rules  is.  almost  beyond  belief.  The 
critical  sundering  not  only  rends  apart  the  most  intimately 
connected  paragraphs,  but  throws  out  isolated  clauses  and 
words  ad  libitum,  upon  the  mere  dictum  of  the  operator, 
and  to  save  the  consistency  of  the  hypothesis.  It*  is  simply 
and  evidendy  a  determined  forcing  through  of  a  foregone 
conclusion  in  spite  of  every  consideration  that  stands  in  the 
way. 

Pushing  the  linguistic  and  literary  argument  aside,  as  des- 
titute of  any  real  force  in  application  to  this  portion  of  the 
Pentateuch,  the  discussion  proceeds  to  grapple  with  the 
problems  arising  out  of  the  constitution  and  character  of 
the  laws  themselves,  and  of  the  several  Codes  in  which  they 
are  found.  This  is  the  chosen  field  of  the  latest  phase  of 
criticism,  and  it  is  from  this  quarter  that  the  materials  are 
drawn  for  its  most  formidable  assaults  upon  the  authenticity 
of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Mosaic  origin  of  its  laws.  The 
issue  involved  is  not  merely  that  of  the  authorship  of  a  given 
production,  nor  whether  particular  institutions  took  their 
rise  in  one  century  or  in  another.  It  is  a  question  of  the 
veracity  of  the  sacred  volume  from  first  to  last.  The  ques- 
tion is  fundamentally  that  between  rationalism  and  super- 
natural religion.  Did  the  institutions  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  by  legitimate  and  necessary  sequence  those  of  the  New 


V I  INTR  ODUC  TION. 

Testament  also,  proceed  from  the  revelation  of  God  ?  or  are 
they  the  natural  outgrowth  of  the  national  life  of  Israel  ? 

The  writer  of  this  treatise  has  decided  convictions  upon 
this  fundamental  matter,  and  these  underlie  and  shape  his 
whole  treatment  of  the  subject.  They  determine  his  point 
of  view,  but  they  do  not  supersede  a  thorough  and  candid 
investigation.  On  the  contrary,  they  impel  to  a  frank  and 
honest  examination  of  the  whole  ground  of  debate  :  they 
lead  to  the  patient  consideration  of  every  objection  that  is 
raised,  and  every  difficulty  that  is  started,  in  the  confident 
assurance  that  all  the  phenomena  of  the  case  must  find  their 
solution  in  harmony  with  what  is  true  and  right. 

Since  the  argument  is  throughout  conducted  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  latest  critical  school,  with  the  purpose  of  wrest- 
ing their  weapons  from  their  hands,  it  is  necessarily  limited 
to  the  region  within  which  these  critics  themselves  move, 
and  to  considerations  whose  validity  must  be  conceded  even 
from  the  stand-point  which  they  occupy.  Nothing  is  gained 
in  controversy  with  them  by  adducmg  testimonies  whose 
genuineness  is  in  question,  whose  historical  character  is  im- 
pugned, or  which  lie  outside  of  the  field  which  they  recog- 
nize as  the  legitimate  territory  of  debate.  Hence,  no 
argument  is  here  drawn  from  the  authority  of  the  New 
Testament,  in  defence  of  the  Mosaic  origin  or  authorship  of 
the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch.  And,  in  the  Old  Testament, 
every  thing  is  left  out  of  the  account,  which,  on  the  critical 
hypothesis,  is  judged  irrelevant,  or  which  is  susceptible  of 
an  interpretation  consistent  with  its  claims.  These  may 
confirm  the  faith  of  those  who  accept  the  current  view  of 
Scripture  and  of  the  Mosaic  writings,  but  are  not  suited  to 
convince  or  to  confute  opposers. 

It  will  be  found  that  the  discussion  contained  in  this  little 
volume  is  neither  narrow  nor  superficial.  It  is  the  fruit 
of  extensive  reading  and  careful  reflection.     It   is   not   a 


INTRODUCTION.  Vll 

summary  of  results  hastily  gathered  from  compendiums  at 
second-hand,  but  it  is  drawn  from  the  direct  study  of  origi- 
nal sources.  The  views  of  the  leading  critics  are  concisely 
stated  on  the  various  points  raised  in  the  controversy, 
substantially  as  they  present  them  themselves.  These  are 
uniformly  treated  with  eminent  candor  and  fairness,  while  at 
the  same  time  their  weakness  and  fallacy  are  skilfully  ex- 
posed. The  book  makes  no  pretensions  to  be  an  exhaustive 
exhibition  of  the  subject.  It  will  not,  of  course,  prove  a 
substitute  for  more  elaborate  and  extended  works ;  though, 
to  those  who  are  entering  upon  the  study,  it  will  be  an 
admirable  introduction  to  them.  And  for  such  as  wish  to 
gain  a  general  knowledge  of  the  present  state  of  critical 
questions  concerning  the  Pentateuch,  the  range  of  the  dis- 
cussion, and  the  arguments  employed  on  each  side,  I  do 
not  know  where  a  more  satisfactory  exhibition  can  be  found, 
of  what  intelligent  readers  would  wish  to  learn,  in  so  small  a 

compass. 

W.   HENRY   GREEN. 

Princeton,  N.J.,  Jan.  8,  iS86. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER    I. 
STATEMENT  AND  DIVISION  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 

Pentateuch-Criticism  largely  a  question  of  facts,  it  ;  subject  stated        page 
negatively  and  positively,  12  ;  important  aspects  and  bearings  ; 
general  scheme,  and  method  of  treatment,  13     ....        11-14 

CHAPTER  II. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENT  OF  THE  CRITICS. 

Double  purpose  of  the  linguistic  argument,  its  dependence  on  the 
alternation  of  divine  names,  15  ;  bearing  of  Exod.  vi.  2,  3,  p. 
16;  theory  of  Hengstenberg  and  others  not  satisfactory,  17; 
other  proofs  of  diversity  of  authorship  chiefly  subjective,  19; 
yet  added  to  that  from  the  names  of  God  make  a  plausible 
case  for  Genesis,  20 ;  but  the  Mosaic  authorship  not  impugned 
unless  this  can  be  established  likewise  for  the  rest  of  the  Penta- 
teuch ;  the  linguistic  argument  at  first  regarded  with  distrust, 
even  by  rationalistic  critics,  21 ;  brought  into  prominence  by 
Eichhorn  and  Gramberg,  22 ;  overlooked  by  conservative  crit- 
ics, pushed  still  farther  by  Stahelin,  scrutinized  by  Kurtz,  23 ; 
who  yielded  to  Delitzsch ;  Hupfeld's  altered  style  of  argument, 
revival  of  the  historical  method  by  the  latest  critics,  24 ;  and 
literary  analysis  made  less  prominent.  Remarks  preliminary 
to  an  examination  of  the  argument :  i.  Some  presumptive  evi- 
dence required  to  justify  the  literary  analysis  of  the  Pentateu- 
chal  Codes,  25 ;  2.  Argument  valueless  unless  the  differences 
are  marked,  26;  3.  Diversity  of  matter  affects  diction  and 
style;  4.  Differences  must  be  such  as  are  inconsistent  with 
unity  of  authorship,  27;  5.  Arbitrary  and  inadmissible  meth- 
ods of  the  critics,  28 ^S~3° 

I 


2  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER   III. 

THE  LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENT  EXAMINED. 

Does  Genesis  justify  the  literary  analysis  of  the  Pentateuchal  Codes  ?  page 
31  ;  Elohistic  words  and  phrases  of  Genesis,  which  re-appear 
after  Exod.  vi.  2,  3,  p.  32  ;  some  only  in  Gen.  xvii,,  a  legal  chap- 
ter ;  or  rare  in  Genesis,  or  rare  in  the  Codes,  36  ;  or  found  also 
in  Jehovist  passages,  or  necessary  to  express  the  thought  which 
is  in  many  cases  peculiar  to  the  ritualistic  legislation,  37 ;  the 
number  thus  reduced  to  an  insignificant  group,  40 ;  alleged 
Elohistic  diction  of  the  Codes  of  no  account,  41 ;  Jehovist  dic- 
tion in  Exod.  xii.,  xiii.,  p.  42  ;  in  the  Decalogue,  criteria  are 
intermingled,  45  ;  so  also  in  Exod.  xx.  i8-xxiii.  and  xxxiv.  10- 
25,  p.  46;  Lev.  xvii.-xxvi ,  p.  47;  Num.  viii.  23-26,  p.  48;  in- 
conclusiveness  of  the  linguistic  argument  notwithstanding  the 
general  agreement  of  the  critics,  49 31-50 

CHAPTER   IV. 

INCOMPLETENESS   OF  THE  CODES. 

Completeness  of  legislation  in  the  modern  sense  not  to  be  expected; 
the  law  embraces  those  ceremonial  and  civil  forms  which  were 
shaped  by  the  theocratic  idea,  all  else  left  to  existing  usage  or 
future  provision  ;  opposite  objections  urged,  incompleteness,  or 
too  great  perfection  for  a  nomad  tribe,  5 1  ;  isolation  of  the  peo- 
ple and  the  equal  division  of  lands  favor  simplicity  of  legisla- 
tion, which  was  subordinate  to  Israel's  high  spiritual  calling,  52,         51,  52 

CHAPTER   V. 

SYSTEM,  OR  DISORDER? 

Alleged  want  of  arrangement,  53;  a  genetic  order  to  be  expected, 
Bertheau's  seven  groups,  54 ;  unity  of  the  feast-laws  in  Exod. 
xii.,  xiii.,  shown  positively,  55;  chronological  objection  from 
xii.  3,  p.  56 ;  memorial  a7ite  factum,  alleged  discrepancies  in 
the  account,  57;  or  interpolation,  contradiction,  59;  and  trans- 
position ;  duplicate  and  mutually  inconsistent  laws,  unleavened 
bread  not  mentioned  in  Moses'  instruction  to  the  elders,  60 ; 
the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  61  ;  directions  for  building  the 
sanctuary,  Exod.  xxv.-xxx.,  p.  62 ;  Sabbath-law,  Exod.  xxxi. 
12-17,  p.  63;  restatement  of  the  Covenant-law,  xxxiv.  10-27, 
p.  64;  Sabbath-law,  xxxv.  1-3;  Levitical  Code,  the  sacrificial 
laws,  Lev.  i.-vii.,  p.  65  ;   induction  of   Aaron   and  his   sons, 


CONTENTS.  3 

chap,  viii.-x.,  laws    concerning   iincleanness,  purification,  and         PAGE 
holiness,  chap,  xi.-xxv.,  p.  66  ;   uhity  of   chap,  xxiii.,  p.  68  ; 
formal  close  in  chap,  xxvi.,  p.  70 ;   chap,  xxvii.,  vows ;   histor- 
ical principle  of  arrangement  predominates  in  Numbers,  71 ; 
Bertheau's  groups ;  objections  answered,  72       .        .        .        .        53-74 

CHAPTER  VI. 

CONTRADICTIONS  AND  REPETITIONS. 

Contradictory  laws  not  exclusive  of  Mosaic  authorship  if  due  to 
altered  circumstances  or  one  substituted  for  the  other,  or  if  the 
discrepancies  are  few  and  isolated,  75 ;  seeming  differences 
may  arise  from  the  peculiar  aims  of  distinct  laws,  76 ;  Kuenen's 
distinction  dissented  from ;  methods  of  harmonizing,  systemat- 
ically and  historically,  "]•] ;  Delitzsch's  illustration  from  the 
Justinian  Code,  78;  how  contradictions  may  be  invalidated; 
repetitions  explained,  79 75-80 

CHAPTER   VII. 

DEVELOPMENT  OF    LAW. 

Evolutionary  and  naturalistic  critics  necessarily  obliged  to  reverse 
the  order  of  Israel's  history,  81  ;  the  scheme  of  Wellhausen,  82  ; 
confessed  retrogression,  %i ;  alleged  order  of  the  Codes,  84       .        81-84 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

UNITY  OR  PLURALITY  OF  SANCTUARY? 

The  Covenant-law  in  Exod.  xx.  24-26;  its  directions  provisional, 
85;  objections  answered,  86;  the  words,  "where  I  record  my 
name,"  87 ;  unity  presupposed  in  the  feast-law,  xxiii.  17,  19,  no 
contradiction  in  this  respect  between  the  Covenant-law  and 
subsequent  Codes,  88  ;  absence  of  provision  for  priests  does  not 
prove  the  right  of  all  to  offer  sacrifice  ;  Deuteronomy  wrongly 
cited  as  a  witness  to  the  period  immediately  preceding  Josi- 
ah's  reform,  8g ;  it  emphasizes  permanence  as  well  as  unity, 
91  ;  its  polemic  character  explained,    92 85-95 

CHAPTER   IX. 

THF  SACRIFICIAL  SYSTEM. 

Wellhausen's  scheme  of  the  development  of  sacrifice  and  its  ritualj 
96;  the  same  sacrifices  in  Deuteronomy  and  the  Jehovist ;  con- 


4  CONTENTS. 

trast  between  the  Covenant-law  and  the  Priest  Code  too  sharply         page 
drawn  ;  original  simplicity  of  sacrifice  no  objection  to  the  Mo- 
saic origin  of  the  Priest  Code,  99 ;  burnt-offerings  and  peace- 
offerings  ;  the  existence  of  the  altai-  of  incense,  100  ,        .        .       96-103 

CHAPTER  X. 

PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES. 

The  gradual  restriction  of  the  priestly  ofifice  as  affirmed  by  the  crit- 
ics, 104 ;  the  alleged  stages  of  the  development,  106 ;  it  is  de- 
nied that  Jehovistic  law  knows  nothing  of  a  priestly  order, 
107;  or  that  Deuteronomy  puts  priests  and  Levites  on  a  par, 
loS  :  post-exilic  books  use  the  same  generic  designation ;  allega- 
tion controverted  that  Deuteronomy  assigns  priestly  functions 
to  Levites,  109 ;  use  made  of  Ezekiel's  Thora  by  the  critics, 
though  it  is  ideal,  1 1 1  ;  and  prospective ;  Ezekiel's  three  state- 
ments, 112;  their  explanation,  113;  at  first  return  from  exile 
distinction  between  priests  and  Levites  already  established, 
118  ;  more  priests  returned  than  Levites;  arbitrary  to  assume 
that  this  part  only  of  Ezekiel's  Thora  was  binding,  119;  no 
gradual  restriction  of  the  priesthood  on  this  hypothesis,  120;  it 
does  not  explain  how  Levi  became  the  priestly  tribe,  121 ; 
Wellhausen's  evasion,  122;  distinction  traceable  in  the  tribe  of 
Levi,  existence  of  an  Aaronic  priesthood  shown,  124;  Kuenen's 
inference  from  Deut.  xxxiii.  S-u  ;  priests  and  Levites  distin- 
guished in  Samuel  and  Kings,  125  ;  Wellhausen's  opinion  that 
the  high-priest  was  unknown  before  the  exile,  his  arguments 
examined,  126 104-129 

CHAPTER  XI. 

LEVITICAL  AND  PRIESTLY  REVENUES. 

Wellhausen's  view  of  the  change  in  the  priest's  share  of  the  sacri- 
fices, 130;  remarks  in  reply,  131  ;  alleged  change  in  tithes,  re- 
plied to,  132  ;  change  in  firstlings,  reply,  \2i}, ;  objections  relating 
to  the  Levitical  cities,  134  ;  reply,  136 130-138 

CHAPTER    XII. 

FEASTS. 

Points  in  which  the  feast-laws  of  Deuteronomy  advance  beyond  the 
Jehovistic  Code,  139  ;  further  advance  in  the  Priest  Code,  141 ; 
alleged  agricultural  origin  of  the  three  main  feasts,  but  the  ear- 
liest laws  assign  a  historical  basis  for  Passover,  14^  ;  critics' 
severance  of  Passover  and  unleavened  bread,  144  j  etymology 


CONTENTS.  5 

of  "  Passover,"  critical  evasion,  146 ;  Wellhausen's  hypothesis  PAGE 
of  its  origin,  147  ;  his  arguments  reviewed,  148  ;  historical  asso- 
ciation of  feast  of  tabernacles  not  of  late  origin,  150;  pre- 
tended advance  of  Deuteronomy  upon  the  Covenant-law 
considered,  151  ;  alleged  peculiarities  of  the  Priest  Code  con- 
sidered, 153;  Passover  not  merely  a  commemoration,  but  a 
saving  ordinance,  the  holy  convocation  on  the  seventh  day  of 
unleavened  bread,  155  ;  a  day  said  to  have  been  added  by  the 
Priest  Code  to  both  unleavened  bread  and  tabernacles ;  also 
feast  of  trumpets  and  Day  of  Atonement  said  to  be  additional, 
157  ;  arguments  for  this  allegation  considered,  138     .        .        .     139-164 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

UNITY    OF    DEUTERONOMY    AND    THE    LAWS    OF   THE 
INTERMEDIATE   BOOKS. 

Critical  views  of  Deuteronomy ;  the  sense  in  which  its  unity  with 
preceding  laws  is  maintained,  165  ;  the  peculiar  character  of 
Deuteronomy  variously  defined,  i65;  best  presented  by  Haver- 
nick,  167;  this  the  most  comprehensive  and  applicable  to  all 
the  phenomena,  168;  the  diversity  of  character  does  not  pre- 
clude unity  of  authorship,  since  Moses  was  both  legislator  and 
prophet,  170;  exhaustive  treatment  of  differences  by  Hengsten- 
berg  and  others ;  Deuteronomy  posterior  to  the  legislation  of 
the  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  1 72  ;  Kuenen's  prior  state- 
ments on  this  subject,  173;  Graf's  declaration  that  Deuteron- 
omy presupposed  the  Elohistic  narrative,  174;  the  relation  of 
Deuteronomy  to  the  Jehovistic  Code  does  not  disprove  the  ex- 
istence of  the  Elohistic  Code  ;  allusions  in  Deuteronomy  to  the 
Elohistic  history,  176  ;  and  to  the  Elohistic  legislation,  177       .     165-179 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  FOR  THE  MOSAIC  ORIGIN  OF  THE 
DEUTERONOMIC   CODE. 

The  new  and  the  old  hypothesis  contrasted,  180  ;  the  explicit  testi- 
mony in  Deut.  xxxi.  9,  24  ;  this  refers  not  to  the  whole  Pen- 
tateuch, but  to  the  legal  portion  of  Deuteronomy,  181 ;  though 
yielding  indirect  testimony  in  regard  to  the  other  Codes  ;  "  lit- 
erary fiction,"  183;  to  be  distinguished  from  legal  forgery,  184; 
indirect  testimony  of  Deuteronomy  to  its  Mosaic  origin,  the 
time  and  situation,  acquaintance  shown  with  the  region,  not  due 
to  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  author  to  personate  Moses, 
1 86;  tlie  conquest  of  Canaan  still  futm-e,  references  to  the  so- 
journ in  Egypt,  187    .........     iSo-iSS 


6  CONTENTS. 

\  CHAPTER  XV. 

T  OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED. 

Deuteronomy  alleged  to  be  a  Reform  Code,  and  assigned  to  differ-  page 
ent  dates  ;  Riehm's  propositions,  189 ;  its  supernatural  charac- 
ter denied  ;  are  the  utterances  of  Deuteronomy  vaticinia  ex 
eventu?  chap.  xvii.  14-20  as  related  to  Solomon's  reign,  190; 
to  the  narrative  in  1  Sam.  viii.,  p.  191 ;  all  consistent  with  Mosaic 
origin,  but  not  with  later  date,  192  ;  xvii.  8-13,  the  institution 
of  Judges,  193;  not  prove  its  origin  in  or  after  the  reign  of  Je- 
hoshaphat ;  chap,  xviii.,  the  prophet  like  Moses,  and  false  proph- 
ets, 194  ;  iv.  ig,  xvii.  3,  the  prohibition  of  star-worship  ;  "  beyond 
Jordan,"  195  ;  positive  arguments,  the  military  law  of  chap,  xx., 
the  curse  upon  Amalek,  197  ;  attitude  toward  Edom  and  Egypt, 
198;  Lev.  xvii,  modified  in  Deut.  xii.  15,  other  laws,  no  re-ac- 
tion against  ceremonial  formalism,  199;  passing  of  Jordan,  and 
conquest  of  Caanan,  200 189-200 

CHAPTER   XVI. 

INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  OF  THE  I\IOSAIC  ORIGIN  OF  THE 
LAWS    IN    EXODUS-NUMBERS. 

Twofold  direct  testimony,  Mosaic  origin  claimed,  201 ;  Moses  wrote 
certain  laws,  Exod.  xvii.  i-i,  p.  202;  xxiv.  4,  Num.  xxxiii.  2, 
critical  inferences,  203  ;  indirect  internal  evidence,  204 ;  Bleek's 
propositions,  two  opposite  theories,  205  ;  principles  on  which 
the  solution  must  rest,  206 ;  no  allusions  alleged  in  the  Priest 
Code  to  its  assumed  late  date,  207 ;  the  law  concerning  leprosy 
demonstrably  Mosaic,  209  ;  further  deductions  from  this  fact, 
210;  the  Decalogue,  211 201-213 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

TESTIMONY    OF   THE    HISTORICAL    BOOKS,— JUDGES,   FIRST 
AND    SECOND   SAMUEL,   FIRST  AND    SECOND    KINGS. 

The  critics'  conception  of  the  sources,  214;  makes  positive  argu- 
ment from  this  quarter  useless  with  them,  215;  testimony  set 
aside  by  the  assumption  of  interpolations  ;  observance  of  the 
ritual  does  not  certainly  prove  existence  of  Codes,  though  it 
conflicts  with  the  latest  phase  of  criticism,  216;  attitude  apolo- 
getic, simply  prove  that  admitted  facts  do  not  exclude  the  ex- 
istence of  the  Pentateuchal  Codes,  Bochim,  Gideon,  Manoah, 
217;  Jephthah,  218;  Bethel,  Micah,  sacrifice  by  others  than 
priests,  first  chapters  of  Samuel,  219;  captivity  of  the  ark,  re- 


CONTENTS.  7 

form  under  Samuel,  220;  Saul,  David,  221;  Solomon,  period         page 

after  the  schism,  222  ;   attitude   of   the   prophets   of   the   ten 

tribes,  worship  in  high  places,  223 214-226 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

TESTIMONY  OF  THE  EARLY  PROPHETS. 

Argue  only  from  books  whose  antiquity  is  acknowledged  by  the 
critics ;  value  of  this  testimony  ;  references  to  "  the  law  of  Je- 
hovah," 227  ;  the  phrase  has  both  a  general  and  more  limited 
sense,  228 ;  in  certain  passages  it  must  mean  the  Mosaic  law, 
229;  Hos.  viii.  12  discussed,  231;  Smend's  admissions,  233; 
references  to  the  ritual  do  not  establish  the  existence  of  the 
Codes,  but  on  the  other  hand  their  existence  cannot  be  dis- 
proved ;  alleged  antagonism  to  the  priesthood  and  ceremonial, 
235  ;  but  the  ceremonies  opposed  are  treated  not  with  indiffer- 
ence but  with  repugnance,  236 ;  the  recognized  relation  of  cere- 
monies and  true  piety  shown  even  by  evil-doers  ;  the  prophets 
did  not  aim  to  abolish  the  ritual,  237 ;  Isa.  xxix.  13,  the  favora- 
ble estmiate  put  upon  the  ritual,  Amos  v.  25,  26,  discussed,  238,     227-241 

CHAPTER    XIX. 

TESTIMONY  OF   THE  POETICAL  BOOKS. 

Critical  opinions  respecting  the  poetical  books,  Reuss,  242  ;  Davidic 
Psalms  according  to  Hitzig  and  Ewald,  their  spiritual  concep- 
tions, 243  ;  deductions  from  them,  the  law  referred  to,  244  ;  Zion 
the  only  legal  sanctuary,  references  to  the  Pentateuch,  245         .     242-246 

CHAPTER  XX. 

SECOND  KINGS   XXII.   AND  NEHEMIAH  VIII.-X. 

A  pious  fraud  assumed  in  2  Kings  xxii  ;  but  the  easy  submission  of 
opposers  unaccountable,  247 ;  Deut.  xxviii.  36,  why  an  entire 
Code  ?  such  a  forgery  without  a  parallel  in  the  Old-Testament 
literature,  248 ;  Kuenen's  inconsistent  attitude  to  Neh,  viii.-x ; 
the  law  read  by  Ezra  not  the  Priest  Code  merely,  but  the  entire 
Mosaic  Thora,  249 ;  Ezra's  relation  to  this  law  ;  the  critics' 
hypothesis  located  in  a  period  of  which  nothing  is  known, 
Ezekiel's  programme,  251  ;  the  so-called  Deutero-Isaiah,  the 
exiles  who  first  returned,  252  ;  successive  steps  assumed  by 
the  critics  in  the  formation  of  the  Priest  Code ;  entire  lack  of 
positive  evidence,  253  ;  insupposable  under  the  circumstances, 
254 ;  the  scheme  impracticable,  256  ;  the  old  view  safest  and 
best,  258 247-258 


8  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER   XXI. 

DID   MOSES   WRITE  THE   LAWS? 

What  Moses  is  expressly  stated  to  have  written,  259 ;  the  art  of  page 
writing  possessed  by  the  Israelites  in  the  Mosaic  age,  source 
of  the  Semitic  alphabet,  260 ;  Israel's  state  of  civilization  at  the 
exodus,  261  ;  oral  transmission  of  laws,  262  ;  probable  inference 
from  the  writing  of  the  Covenant-law,  the  Decalogue  and  Deu- 
teronomy, that  the  Priest  Code  was  written  likewise,  263  .     259-263 


THE    MOSAIC    ORIGIN    OF    THE 
PENTATEUCHAL    CODES. 


THE    MOSAIC    ORIGIN    OF    THE 
PENTAFEUCHAL    CODES. 


CHAPTER    I. 

STATEMENT  AND  DIVISION  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 

THE  subject  defined  by  this  title  is  one  of  very 
complicated  and  comprehensive  character.  Es- 
pecially since  Pentateach-Criticism  has  become  pre- 
eminently historical  in  its  most  advanced  leaders,  — 
the  school  of  Reuss,  Kuenen,  Wellhausen,  and  others, 
—  the  field  of  investigation  has  been  so  enlarged,  and 
the  various  arguments  have  assumed  such  complex 
relations  to  each  other,  that  more  space  would  be 
required  for  a  full  discussion  than  we  can  allow  our- 
selves. Pentateuch-Criticism  has,  to  a  very  large 
extent,  been  reduced  to  a  question  of  facts.  A 
detailed  examination  of  facts  must  furnish  the  basis 
upon  which  all  debate  must  at  present  be  conducted 
between  the  conservative  and  destructive  critics.  On 
account  of  this  comprehensiveness,  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  define  our  subject,  that  every  thing  which 
does  not  properly  belong  to  it,  or  is  not  vitally  con- 
nected with  it,  may  be  excluded  at  the  outset. 


12  THE   rENTATEUCIIAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

1.  We  do  not  intend  to  discuss  the  authenticity  of 
the  Pentateuch,  but  only  the  IMosaic  origin  of  the 
Codes  which  it  contains.  The  latter  is  independent 
of  the  former,  though  the  reverse  may  not  be  true. 
Both  questions  are  connected  in  so  far  that  the 
establishment,  of  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Codes 
would  furnish  one  of  the  strongest  arguments  for 
the  authenticity  of  the  whole,  since  the  narrative  is 
in  most  cases  subsidiary  to  the  legislation,  and  serves 
as  its  framework. 

2.  By  the  predication  of  Mosaic  origin  is  not  meant 
that  every  statute  and  regulation  in  particular  can 
be  proven  to  have  emanated  from  the  mouth  of  Moses. 
From  the  nature  of  the  case,  such  proof  can  never 
be  given.  Neither  will  it  be  possible  to  show  that 
the  ipsissima  verba  of  the  law  in  its  present  form 
descend  from  Moses.  All  that  we  intend  to  make  a 
point  of  inquiry  is,  ivJietJicr  tJie  bulk  and  essence  of 
the  Pentatenchal  Codes,  in  so  far  as  they  exhibit  the 
evidences  of  being  one  great  system  of  legislation,  bear 
the  impress  of  the  Mosaic  age.  The  origin  of  each 
individual  part  must  be  estimated  by  its  relation  to 
this  systematic  whole. 

3.  The  questions  whether  Moses  promulgated  the 
laws  that  pass  under  his  name,  and  whether  he  cod- 
ified them  in  written  form,  should  be  kept  distinct. 
Abstractly  they  admit  of  being  separated.  How  far 
such  separation  is  supposable  in  this  concrete  case 
will  appear  hereafter. 

4.  The  problem  may  be  stated  in  a  somewhat  dif- 
ferent form  ;  viz.,  whether  the  law  be  the  immediate 
product  of  divine  revelation,  comjolete  from  the  first. 


DIVISION  OF   THE  SUBJECT.  1 3 

and  not  admitting  of  development,  or  the  final  out- 
come of  a  long  process  of  growth,  oftentimes  changed 
before  it  petrified  into  its  present  form.  Is  the  law- 
soil  and  seed,  or  is  it  the  fruit  of  the  religious  devel- 
opment of  Israel  ?  All  these  contrasts  are  nearly- 
synonymous  with  the  great  alternative,  —  Mosaic,  or 
non-Mosaic  ?  The  former  naturally  represents  reve- 
lation, the  latter  development.  Hence  it  appears 
that  the  unity  of  the  Codes  must  occupy  an  impor- 
tant place  in  the  discussion. 

5.  Our  subject  is  one  of  wide  and  important  bear- 
ings, not  only  in  the  department  of  Criticism,  but  also 
of  Apologetics.  It  touches  the  heart  of  the  Christian 
conception  of  revelation.  Criticism  on  the  part  of 
our  opponents  has  long  since  left  its  independent 
position,  and  become  subservient  to  naturalistic  ten- 
dencies. It  manifests  a  spirit  of  enmity  against  the 
very  material  upon  which  it  works.  The  innocent 
literary  aspect  of  the  question  has  been  lost :  it  is  no 
longer  a  matter  of  dilettanteism,  but  of  pressing  and 
practical  importance,  which  cannot  be  confined  to 
the  lecture-rooms  and  studies  of  the  learned,  but 
claims  the  interest  of  the  Church  at  large. 

We  shall  endeavor  to  arrange  the  numerous  ques- 
tions involved  under  certain  general  heads,  and 
choose  the  following  scheme  :  — 

I.  Unity  of  the  Pentateuchal  Codes. 

A.  Unity  of  the  laws  in  Exodus-Numbers. 

1.  The  linguistic  and  literary  argument. 

2.  Incompleteness  of  the  Codes. 

3.  System,  or  disorder? 

4.  Contradictions. 


e 


t 


14  TJ/£   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

5.  Repetitions. 

6.  Development  of  law, 

B.  Unity  of  Deuteronomy  and  the  laws  of  the  inter- 
/p /^  OTniediate  books. 

1.  Does  a  unity  of  relation  exist  between  Deuter- 

onomy and  the  Codes  of  the  middle  books  ? 

2.  If  so,  to  which  of  the  two  must  we  assign  the 

priority  ? 
II.  Internal  evidence    of  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Penta- 
/  ^    teuchal  Codes. 

A.  Internal  evidence  of  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Deu- 

teronomic  Code. 

1.  Direct  testimony  of  the  Code  to  its  own  origin. 

2.  Indirect  internal  testimony. 

3.  The  fraud-theory. 

B.  Internal  evidence  of  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  laws 
^  Q  1    in  Exodus-Numbers. 

(j  I.  Direct  testimony  of  the  laws  to  their  own  origin. 

a.  Simply  Mosaic  origin  claimed. 

b.  Codification  of  laws  in  written  form. 
2.  Indirect  internal  evidence. 

III.  External  evidence  of  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Penta- 
.  a      teuchal  Codes. 

A.  The    testimony   of  the    historical   books,   Judges, 

I  and  2  Samuel,  i  and  2  Kings. 

B.  Testimony  of  the   early  prophets,   Hosea,  Amos, 

Isaiah,  Micah. 

C.  Testimony  of  the  poetical  books. 

D.  2  Kinfrs  xxii.  and  Nehemiah  viii.-x. 


THE   LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENT  1 5 


CHAPTER    II. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENT  OF  THE    CRITICS. 

THE  critical  examination  of  the  linguistic  charac- 
ter of  the  Pentateuch  has  been  carried  on  with  a 
double  purpose  :  a.^£L  obtain  the  criteria  for  an  ana- 
lytical distribution  of  its  contents  among  the  various 
documents  which  critics  profess  to  find ;  b.  To  fix 
the  relative  date  of  these  documents.  Whilst  in  / 
the  fatter  respect,  however,  the  linguistic  argument 
is  no  longer  counted  as  a  decisive  factor,  it  has  been 
elaborated  for  the  former  purpose  to  such  a  degree 
of  minuteness,  and  with  such  consummate  skill,  that 
at  present  it  constitutes  one  of  the  most  perplexing 
phenomena  for  those  who  defend  the  essential  unity 
of  the  Pentateuch, 

For  a  just  estimate  of  the  character  and  force  of 
the  argument,  it  will  be  necessary  to  exhibit  not 
only  its  historical  connection  with  the  discovery  of 
Astruc,  but  also  its  logical  dependence  on  the  latter. 
The  critics  have  gradually  detached  the  one  from  the 
other,  apparently  unconscious  that  in  doing  so  they 
have  destroyed  the  very  basis  on  which  they  rest. 
We  must  start  with  a  recognition  of  the  very  re- 
markable use  of  the  divine  names  in  Genesis  and 
the  first  chapters  of  Exodus.     The  question,  what  is 


1 6  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

the  cause  of  this,  cannot  be  ultimately  decided  by  an 
interpretation  of  the  much  discussed  passage,  Exod. 
vi.  2,  3.  If  we  understand  it  in  the  sense  that  the 
name  Jahveh  was  previously  to  this  absolutely  un- 
known to  the  patriarchs  and  Israelites,  it  follows  im- 
mediately that  the  writer  of  this  passage  cannot  be 
the  author  of  the  Jehovistic  passages  which  precede, 
unless  we  take  recourse  with  Clericus  and  others  to 
the  assumption  of  a  prolepsis,  which,  however,  as 
Hengstenberg  has  shown,  will  not  account  for  the 
facts.  But  when  we  take  the  passage  in  its  other 
more  probable  sense,  that  God  had  not  previously 
revealed  to  Israel  those  special  attributes  which  con- 
stitute him  Jahveh,  it  does  not  follow  immediately, 
that,  by  this  different  interpretation,  the  interchange 
of  both  names  is  satisfactorily  explained.  To  show 
that  the  writer  of  Exod.  vi.  2,  3,  did  not  absolutely 
deny  the  previous  knowledge  of  the  name  Jahveh,  is 
quite  a  different  thing  from  explaining  how  he,  ac- 
quainted with  the  facts,  could  have  used  both  names 
in  the  course  of  the  same  work  in  such  a  peculiar 
manner. 

In  favor  of  the  former  interpretation,  attention  has 
been  called  to  the  fact,  that,  in  the  Hebrew  mind, 
there  was  a  very  intimate  connection  between  the 
name  and  the  nature  of  a  thing ;  that  the  name  is 
never  accidental  or  arbitrary,  but  the  expression  of  the 
nature  ;  that  consequently  not  to  know  God  as  to  his 
name  Jahveh,  is  equivalent  to  a  not-knowing  of  his 
nature  as  such  and  the  reverse.  Nature  and  name 
are  so  indissolubly  connected,  that,  where  knowledge 
of  the  former  is  wanting,  acquaintance  with  the  lat- 


THE   LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENT.  1/ 

ter  cannot  be  imagined.  We  must  admit  that  there 
is  an  amount  of  truth  in  this  statement  :  still,  it  is  not 
sufficient  to  disprove  the  possibility  of  an  external 
proclamation  of  the  divine  name  previous  and  pre- 
paratory to  the  actual  exhibition  of  its  meaning. 
Exod.  iii.  13-15  furnishes  a  parallel,  and  shows  that 
nothing  else  is  intended  than  an  announcement  of 
God's  purpose  to  manifest  himself  in  those  attributes 
of  his  nature  emphasized  in  the  name  Jahveh,  which 
had  already  existed,  and  been  used  before.  As  has 
been  remarked,  however,  this  by  no  means  decides 
the  bearing  of  the  passage  on  the  unity  of  Genesis  or 
the  Pentateuch.  The  point  at  issue  is,  whether  the 
various  theories  which  have  been  proposed  by  critics 
in  connection  with  this  interpretation  can  be  fairly 
said  to  account  for  the  fact,  that,  in  certain  portions, 
Jahveh  is  used  exclusively,  in  others  Elohim,  whilst 
still  others  are  of  a  mixed  character.  We  must  ex- 
amine the  various  explanations  presented,  before  we 
can  have  any  argument,  either  for  unity  or  diversity 
of  authorship. 

The  most  plausible  theory  is  that  of  Hengstenberg, 
Keil,  Havernick,  and  Kurtz  (who  afterwards,  how- 
ever, adopted  the  supplementary  hypothesis).  They 
ascribe  the  alternation  of  Jahveh  and  Elohim  to  in- 
tentional adjustment  on  the  part  of  the  writer  to  the 
historical  circumstances  and  contents.  It  is  certainly 
true  that  both  names  are  not  synonymous  ;  but  the 
question  remains,  whether  the  difference  in  their  sig- 
nification accounts  for  their  appearance  in  all  the 
passages  under  consideration.  It  creates  a  strong 
presumption  against  the  theory  that  all  these  writers, 


1 8  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

notwithstanding  their  agreement  in  principle,  still, 
when  they  come  to  apply  it  in  individual  cases,  differ 
widely.  This  shows  that  their  ingenious  explana- 
tions have  not  been  suggested  by  the  circumstances 
themselves,  but  by  their  own  subjective  fancy  im- 
posed upon  them.  The  very  grounds  which  should 
have  induced  the  writer  to  choose  one  of  the  names 
in  a  certain  passage  can  be  shown  to  have  existed 
for  another  passage,  where  the  other  name  is  used. 
Even  the  principle  of  Keil,  which  is  that  of  Heng- 
stenberg  in  a  refined  form,  does  not  agree  with  the 
facts.  The  weakness  of  the  whole  theory  is  admitted 
by  a  man  like  Delitzsch.  He  confesses,  that  all  the 
ingenuity  which  Keil  has  expended  on  the  matter  to 
explain  the  use  of  Jahveh  or  Elohim  in  each  single 
instance,  from  their  original  meaning,  might  have 
been  applied  with  the  same  success  had  the  names 
been  employed  in  exactly  the  reverse  order.  Both 
Drechsler  and  Kurtz  have  retracted  their  former 
opinion,  which  was  substantially  the  same  with  that 
of  Hengstenberg. 

/Others  have  considered  the  preference  of  either 
one  of  the  divine  names  as  due  to  the  peculiarity  of 
the  speakers  who  are  introduced  by  the  writer.  But 
this  explanation,  besides  being  unsatisfactory  in  other 
respects,  is  only  a  partial  one  ;  as  it  does  not  account 
for  the  same  phenomenon  where  no  persons  .appear 
speaking  in  the  narrative. 

/Some  have  appealed  to  mere  accident,  or  to  a  striv- 
ing after  variety  on  the  part  of  the  author.  Delitzsch 
admits  the  possibility  that  the  author  of  Genesis 
could  have  used  both  names  altcrnatelv,  and  adduces 


THE   LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENT.  1 9 

the  Jahveh-  and  Elohim-Psalms  as  a  parallel.  He 
quotes  also  Gen.  vii.  16,  xxvii.  27,  28  ;  Exod.  iii.  4,  and 
other  passages.  Indeed,  if  all  the  passages  under 
consideration  were  of  a  similar  character,  this  would 
be  the  most  easy  and  simple  explanation.  But  what 
may  be  possible  abstractly,  and  even  in  a  few  actual 
cases,  becomes  highly  improbable,  nay  impossible, 
when  taken  as  a  theory  to  account  for  all  the  phe- 
nomena from  Gen.  i.  i  to  Exod.  vi.  2. 

Now,  if  we  could  satisfy  ourselves  with  one  of  these 
theories,  the  other  evidence  which  the  critics  claim 
to  possess  of  a  diversity  of  authorship  would  have 
but  little  weight.  It  is  of  a  strictly  linguistic  char- 
acter; and  how  largely  the  subjective  element  enters 
into  all  such  argumentation,  needs  no  special  proof. 
When  taken  by  itself,  deprived  of  the  accompanying 
use  of  the  special  divine  name,  it  becomes  weak  and 
inconclusive.  More  than  one,  to  whom  the  internal 
literary  evidence  of  analytical  criticism  has  been  pre- 
sented in  this  light,  has  been  astonished  at  the  cre- 
dulity of  the  critics  and  the  extremely  fine  webs  on 
which  their  structures  are  suspended.  But  here,  as 
in  other  cases,  the  evidence  is  cumulative  and  mutu- 
ally sustaining.  The  strength  of  their  position  with 
regard  to  the  use  of  the  divine  names  enables  the 
critics  seemingly  to  justify  and  commend  their  ana- 
lytical researches  to  an  extent  and  with  a  success 
which  would  otherwise  have  been  impossible.  Long 
since,  traces  of  a  peculiar  itsus  loquendi  have  been 
sought,  in  Elohist  sections  specially. 

We  are  told,  that  nrn??,  irpS,  r^^r^  orn  Dvr.^  etc,  are 
favorite  words  and  phrases  of  the  Elohist ;  and  they 


20  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

appear  wherever  the  name  Elohim  appears,  as  its  in- 
separable sateUites.  Proceeding  on  this  principle,  the 
critics  divide  Genesis  ;  and  they  all  agree  as  to  the 
main  results.  The  bearing  of  this  startling  fact  upon 
our  question  is  self-evident.  If  it  can  be  proved  that 
Genesis  consists  of  at  least  two  documents,  and  that 
the  writer  of  each  had  a  plan  in  mind  to  continue  his 
narrative  until  the  possession  of  the  Holy  Land  by 
the  Israelites,  the  suggestion  becomes  a  natural  one 
to  attempt  to  apply  the  same  tnsts,  so  successfully 
employed  in  analyzing  Genesis,  to  the  subsequent 
books  of  the  Pentateuch  also.  And,  in  actual  fact, 
the  critics  claim  that  they  are  able  to  assign  each 
law,  or  Code,  to  its  original  document ;  and,  as  far  as 
analysis  is  concerned,  in  the  main  their  results  agree. 
We  do  not  see  how  the  objections  to  the  unity  of 
Genesis  on  the  ground  just  stated  can  be  answered; 
neither  do  we  knew  of  any  satisfactory  answer  that 
has  been  given  as  yet.  But  whilst  we  cannot  enter 
upon  a  discussion  of  this  matter,  which  would  open 
up  a  field  of  critical  research  scarcely  less  extensive 
than  that  of  our  own  subject,  we  simply  wish  to  indi- 
cate how  closely  the  two  problems  are  interwoven. 
The  treatment  and  solution  of  the  one  will  neces- 
sarily affect  that  of  the  other.  It  is  only  within  the 
limits  to  which  we  are  confined  that  the  destructive 
tendencies  of  the  documentary  hypothesis  burst  upon 
us  in  their  full  light.  One  might  accept  it  for  Genesis, 
without  yielding  to  the  critics  in  the  least  with  re- 
gard to  its  Mosaic  origin.  But  how  can  we  vindi- 
cate this  claim  if  driven  to  the  confession,  that  the 
history  of  the    Mosaic  age  itself  has  reached  us  in 


THE   LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENT.  21 

two  distinct  documents,  bearing  the  same  distinctive 
marks  as  in  Genesis,  and  thereby  proving  themselves 
to  be  their  continuation  ?  And  not  to  speak  of  Mosaic 
origin,  how,  and  to  what  extent,  can  we  claim  unity 
for  a  Code  that  appears  to  be  made  up  of  at  least 
two  such  documents  ?  It  is  easy  to  see  how  much 
depends  on  the  answer  that  we  shall  give  to  these 
and  similar  questions.  If  it  should  become  evident 
that  the  extreme  conservative  position  with  regard 
to  the  unity  of  Genesis  has  to  be  abandoned,  we  can 
comfort  ourselves  with  the  thought  that  Moses  might 
be,  after  all,  the  redactor,  and  in  a  modified  sense  the 
author,  of  Genesis.  The  critical  attack  does  not  reach 
the  heart  of  our  camp.  It  is  different  here.  The 
vital  point  around  which  criticism  has  moved  for 
several  decades  in  concentric  circles,  is  now  made 
the  point  of  a  double  attack  along  the  historical  and 
literary  lines.     Will  it  prove  tenable  } 

Before  we  try  to  answer  this  question,  it  may  be 
well  to  remark,'  that  the  history  of  the  linguistic]/ 
argument  is  not  adapted  to  inspire  confidence  in  its/ 
validity.  It  was  considered  from  the  outset,  even  by 
advanced  and  rationalistic  critics,  with  distrust  and 
reserve.  Apart  from  a  few  general  observations  in 
this  line  by  Spinoza,  Simon,  and  Clericus ;  apart  from 
Astruc's  theory,  and  the  scanty  remarks  of  Eichhorn 
under  the  pretentious  title,  '*  Proof  from  the  Lan- 
guage,"—  Ilgen,  who  first  introduced  the  terms  Elo- 
hist  and  Jehovist,  was  also  the  first  to  point  out  certain 

^  The  material  for  this  historical  sketch  has  been  largely  drawn  from  Ko- 
nig :  "  De  criticae  sacrae  argumento  e  linguae  legibus  repetito."  (Leipzig, 
1879.) 


22  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

jDcculiarities  in  style  and  expressions,  and  meaning  of 
words ;  e.g.,  that  the  Elohist  avoided  the  use  of  pro- 
nouns, had  a  tendency  towards  redundancy,  etc.  In 
the  main,  the  argument  was  either  met  by  direct  ref- 
utation, or  at  least  by  the  claim  that  the  materials 
were  not  distinct  and  conspicuous  enough  to  justify 
the  inference  of  diversity  of  authorship  and  of  sources. 
The  latter  was  the  prevalent  opinion  among  such 
men  as  Hasse,  Herbst,  Jahn,  Sack,  and  even  Ewald. 
In  1807  De  Wette  declared  that  he  would  not  under- 
take to  eliminate  the  original  source  from  Genesis 
and  the  first  chapters  of  Exodus  by  a  purely  literary 
process.  The  argument  found  no  more  favor  with 
Hartmann,  who  pronounced  it  perilous  and  mislead- 
ing. So  largely  did  this  sentiment  of  aversion  and 
distrust  prevail  among  the  critics,  that  Gesenius,  in 
his  "History  of  the  Hebrew  Language"  (1815),  dis- 
regarded the  claims  of  Eichhcrn  and  Ilgen  entirely. 
The  fragmentary  hypothesis  was  in  no  wise  favorable 
to  the  literary  criticism.  Vater,  having  established, 
as  he  thought,  by  other  than  linguistic  arguments,  the 
existence  of  various  fragments,  expended  no  labor  on 
that  which  he  esteemed  himself  fully  able  to  dispense 
with. 

In  1823  the  fourth  edition  of  Eichhorn's  introduc- 
tion appeared,  and  wrought  a  remarkable  change  in 
the  indifference  with  which  the  argument  from  lan- 
guage had  hitherto  been  dismissed  or  ignored.  Gram- 
berg  worked  in  the  line  indicated  by  Eichhorn,  and 
analyzed  Genesis.  His  methods  drew  the  assent  of 
De  Wette,  and  made  even  Hartmann  less  persistent 
in   his   opposition ;  though    the  latter  continued    to 


THE   LIXGUISTIC  ARGUMENT.  23 

characterize  the  linguistic  criteria  as  ''  indicia  falla- 
cia''  In  the  mean  while  Vater's  and  Hartmann's 
criticism  had  this  effect,  that  it  distracted  the  atten- 
tion of  conservative  critics  from  Genesis,  and  kept 
them  occupied  with  the  attempt  to  prove  that  the 
laws  of  Deuteronomy  did  not  essentially  differ  from 
those  of  the  preceding  books,  and  that  the  whole 
Pentateuch  was  to  be  assigned  to  the  Mosaic  age. 
Hengstenberg,  Ranke,  and  Havernick,  however  emi- 
nent their  achievements  on  other  lines  may  be,  did 
little  thorough  and  complete  work  in  this  direction. 
Drechsler,  though  he  found  much  to  criticise  in  the 
critics  from  a  formal  point  of  view,  did  not  assail  their 
main  position.  In  the  main,  critics  on  the  conserva- 
tive side  were  little  concerned  about  the  literary 
weapons  which  their  opponents  were  handling  with 
such  destructive  skill  and  agility.  Herbst  thought, 
in  1 841,  that  he  could  dismiss  the  m.atter  without 
discussion  ;  and  Welte,  though  not  wholly  omitting 
it,  considered  it  to  be  '*  of  very  slight  importance." 
On  the  other  side,  it  was  chiefly  Stahelin  who  accom- 
plished the  work  begun  by  Eichhorn  and  others.  In 
183 1,  and  afterwards  in  1844,  he  gave  the  linguistic 
characteristics  of  Genesis  a  thorough  examination, 
and  turned  his  attention  also  to  the  peculiarities  of 
the  Jehovist.  To  Stahelin's  statements,  very  little 
that  is  essential  has  been  added  since. 

The  year  1844  indicated  a  marked  change  in  the 
attitude  of  both  parties.  Kurtz  applied  himself  to  a 
subtile  examination  of  all  that  had  been  claimed  in 
support  of  the  divisive  theory,  and  instituted  an  ac- 
curate and  scrutinizing  inquiry  into  the  nature  and 


24  THE  PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

validity  of  the  whole  argumentation.  His  example 
had  this  good  effect,  that  henceforth  believing  critics 
no  longer  refrained  from  meeting  their  opponents  on 
this  field  also  ;  though  it  must  be  added,  that  the 
battle  thus  auspiciously  begun  did  not  issue  in  their 
favor.  The  interest  thus  awakened,  disposed  believ- 
ing scholars  to  give  the  matter  an  unprejudiced  and 
fair  consideration  ;  and  even  Kurtz,  who  had  entered 
the  lists  as  a  defender  of  the  unity  of  the  Pentateuch, 
was  induced  by  Delitzsch  to  join  the  ranks  of  the 
Supplementarists.  (Second  edition  of  the  "  History 
of  the  Old  Covenant,"  1858.)  But  it  appeared  that 
Criticism  had  run,  as  yet,  only  half  of  its  course,  and 
could  not  abide  long  on  the  same  level  with  men 
like  Delitzsch  and  Kurtz.  Having  gradually  won 
their  consent,  it  now  went  on  to  gain  new  laurels  in 
the  construction  of  ingenious  hypotheses.  The  lit- 
erary argument  had  become  stale,  and  could  be  left 
with  the  conservative  critics.  Hupfeld  appeared 
(1853)  with  his  denial  that  the  Jehovist  had  supple- 
mented the  Elohist ;  and  now  not  the  diversity  of 
both,  but  their  independence  of  one  another,  immedi- 
ately absorbed  universal  attention.  It  lay  in  the 
nature  of  the  case,  that  Hupfeld  tried  to  establish  his 
position,  not  so  much  by  literary  criticism  as  by 
tracing  the  nexus  of  the  history.  Since  the  fall  of 
the  supplementary  hypothesis,  and  the  general  ac- 
ceptance of  the  documentary  hypothesis,  the  linguis- 
tic argument  came,  if  not  into  disrepute,  at  least  into 
neglect,  among  the  critics.  Then  the  school  of 
Kuenen,  Graf,  and  Wellhausen,  with  its  revival  of  the 
historical  methods  of  George,  Vatke,  and  Reuss,  took 


THE  LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENT.  2$ 

the  lead  ;  and,  the  question  having  been  thus  put  on 
a  historical  basis,  the  corresponding  literary  side  lost 
much  of  the  attention  it  had  attracted  so  largely  in 
former  days.  Since  then,  though  the  critics  go  on 
to  apply  their  criteria,  and  put  every  line  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch to  this  test,  little  that  is  new  has  been  added. 
Kayser,  who  has  attempted  to  supply  the  Graf-Well- 
hausen  theory  with  a  literary  basis,  uses  the  argu- 
ment outside  of  Genesis  only.  Kleinert  speaks 
ambiguously  of  its  value.  Dillmann  has  carefully 
sifted  the  rich  collections  of  Knobel.  Wellhausen 
finally  contents  himself  with  the  remark,  that  it  is 
settled  among  scholars,  that  the  sections  in  Genesis 
which  he  ascribes  to  the  Jehovist  and  the  second 
Elohist  (JE),  are  as  distinct  from  the  Elohistic  por- 
tions as  they  are  cognate  to  each  other.  Neither, 
however,  is  proved,  or  rests  on  any  more  than  the 
gratuitous  assumption,  that  the  literary  argument 
has  met  with  unqualified  approval  in  every  quarter. 
With  how  little  right  this  can  be  claimed,  our  short 
historical  sketch  has  sufficiently  shown. 

Before  turning  to  the  evidence  itself,  we  must 
make  some  preliminary  remarks,  which  shall  guide 
us  in  its  examination.  They  are  chiefly  the  follow- 
ing:— 

I.  There  must  be,  in  the  first  instance,  some  rea- 
sonable ground  why  the  critical  analysis  should  be 
applied  to  the  Pentateuchal  Code,  to  justify  any  use 
being  made  of  it  whatever.  If  there  be  no  presump- 
tive evidence  that  it  consists  of  various  documents,  it 
will  be  justly  condemned  as  a  most  arbitrary  and  un- 
scientific procedure  to  divide  it  into  several  pieces, 


20  THE   PEN  TATE  UCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

more  or  less  strongly  marked  by  linguistic  or  stylistic 
peculiarities.  The  question  is  not  whether  the  pro- 
cess admits  of  being  made  plausible  by  apparently 
striking  results,  but  whether  it  be  necessary,  or  at 
least  natural,  on  a  priori  considerations.  We  might 
take  a  chapter  or  poem  of  any  one  author,  sunder 
out  a  page,  note  the  striking  expressions,  then  exam- 
ine the  other  parts  of  the  work,  combine  all  the 
passages  where  the  same  terms  appear,  give  them 
the  name  of  a  document,  and  finally  declare  that  all 
the  rest  constitutes  a  second  document,  and  that  the 
two  were  interwoven  by  the  hand  of  a  redactor  so  as 
to  form  now  an  apparent  unity.  Our  first  demand, 
therefore,  is  that  the  critical  analysis  shall  rest  on  a 
solid  foundation,  and  show  its  credentials  beforehand. 
So  long  as  this  rule  is  not  strictly  observed,  the  ana- 
lytical methods  will  be  open  to  the  criticism  of  having 
created  their  own  criteria ;  so  that  it  is  no  wonder,  if 
in  the  end  they  seem  to  be  verified  by  consistent  or 
even  plausible  results.  If  we  first  fabricate  our  cri- 
teria so  as  to  suit  the  phenomena  under  consideration, 
it  is  no  longer  a  startling  fact  when  these  phenomena 
afterwards  appear  to  fall  in  with  our  critical  canons. 

2.  A  direct  inference  from  the  principle  just  stated 
is,  that  the  argument  from  style  and  diction  has 
no  independent  value,  unless  the  differences  be  so 
marked,  and  in  such  a  degree  irreconcilable  with  unity 
of  authorship,  that  they  impress  any  reader  of  ordinary 
discriminating  literary  taste  at  first  sight.  To  argue 
from  a  few  bare  phrases  and  isolated  words  is  simply 
absurd.  The  evidence,  if  it  be  valid  at  all,  must  bear 
out  the  literary  idiosyncrasy  of  the  author  :  it  must 


THE   LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENT.  2/ 

not  only  be  complete  and  manifold,  but  constitute 
one  cognate  whole.  We  do  not  believe  that,  in  the 
light  of  this  canon,  the  results  of  critical  analysis 
will  stand  very  favorably.  For  centuries  and  centuries 
the  pretended  differences  were  not  discovered,  which 
is  a  de  facto  proof  that  they  are  not  of  such  a  nature 
as  may  be  rightly  demanded  for  independent  argu- 
mentation. 

3.  Before  a  fair  conclusion  can  be  reached,  we 
must  eliminate  the  influence  which  the  diversity  of 
subject-matter  will  always  have  on  both  diction  and  / 
style.  Legal  language  constitutes  a  genus  by  itself,  ^ 
and  can  be  judged  only  by  its  own  characteristics. 
Furthermore,  it  is  admitted  on  both  sides  that  the 
Elohist  wrote  or  copied  priestly,  ritual  law;  whilst  the 
Jehovist  legislation  is  chiefly  concerned  with  laying 
down  the  fundamental  principles  of  civil  life.  Now, 
it  is  self-evident  that  the  same  author,  writing  on  both 
lines,  would  be  obliged  to  use  a  different  terminology 
in  each  case.  The  ritual  has  its  own  ideas  and  con- 
ceptions, for  which  certain  words  are  exclusively  em- 
ployed ;  and  so  with  civil  law.  The  idiom  of  neither 
can  be  expected  to  re-appear  in  the  other.  Only  when 
two  laws  treat  of  the  same  topic,  and  an  actual  diver- 
sity as  defined  in  the  preceding  paragraph  exists, 
can  we  draw  a  valid  inference  of  diversity  of  author- 
ship. 

4.  Due  importance  must  likewise  be  attached  to 
the  context  and  the  situation  in  which  the  alleged 
peculiarities  appear.  That  they  recur  in  certain  pas- 
sages cannot  be  taken  as  proof  that  these  together 
form    a    separate    document.     On   the  contrary,  the 


28  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

a.«isertion  will  stand  improved  so  long  as  it  is  possible 
that  other  influences  may  have  caused  the  appear- 
ance of  such  characteristic  expressions  in  all  instances 
under  consideration.  We  have  no  right  to  Hmit  the 
writers  in  their  selection  of  phrases,  or  to  confine 
them  to  the  use  of  one  set  of  words.  Neither  can 
the  privilege  of  employing  synonymes  be  denied  them. 
They  may  consult  their  subjective  taste,  which  is 
always  more  or  less  fluctuating,  have  regard  to  rhythm 
in  the  construction  of  their  sentences,  and  in  many 
ways  be  influenced  by  what  they  think  conducive  to 
fulness  and  elegance  of  diction.  What  the  critics 
must  show,  is  that  one  class  of  phenomena  testifies 
to  such  a  developed  taste  in  grammar  and  style  as 
would  render  the  other  class  of  phenomena  insup- 
posable  in  the  same  writer.  And  since  it  is  not  pos- 
sible, in  view  of  our  partial  acquaintance  with  the 
Hebrew,  to  determine  by  what  considerations  the 
writer  may  have  been  led  in  the  use  of  his  vocabu- 
lary, or  the  shaping  of  his  sentences,  we  must  insist 
upon  it,  that  the  critics  on  their  part  show  the  im- 
possibility that  such  causes  should  have  been  at  work 
as  might  account  for  the  facts  consistently  with  unity 
of  authorship.  We  must  continually  remember,  that 
in  this  whole  matter  the  burden  of  proof  lies  on  the 
other  side. 

5.  The  critics  constantly  indulge  in  certain  favorite 
practices  which  strongly  tend  to  destroy  any  thing 
objective  in  their  argument.  One  of  these  is  to  take 
a  single  verse,  or  half  a  verse,  or  even  a  smaller  por- 
tion still,  out  of  its  natural  connection,  and  attach  it 
to  a  section  from  which  it  is  remotely  separated,  for 


r^ 


THE   LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENT.  29 

the  simple  reason  that  it  does  not  conform  to  their 
literary  canons.  The  method  looks  very  innocent, 
but  is  at  bottom  extremely  deceptive  in  a  twofold 
aspect :  a.  It  begs  the  question,  for  thus  all  traces 
of  an  Elohistic  itsiis  loqiLendi  may  be  eliminated  from 
Jehovistic  sections  and  the  reverse ;  if  this  be  allowed, 
the  argument  might  as  well  be  given  up.  b.  What 
the  critics  in  reality  do  by  this  method,  is  just  by  a 
dexterous  but  suspicious  movement  to  turn  in  their 
favor  wdiat  is  in  fact  against  them.  That  an  Elohis- 
tic phrase  all  at  once  makes  its  appearance  in  the 
midst  of  a  purely  Jehovistic  environment,  is  a  most 
perplexing  difficulty,  which  cannot  be  relieved  by 
declaring  it  the  result  of  a  variety  of  hands  which 
have  been  at  work  upon  the  composition  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch. For  it  is  a  sound  critical  axiom,  that  diver- 
sity of  style  and  diction  can  only  be  verified  by  a 
comparison  of  lengthy  passages,  whose  nsiis  loqtiendi 
is  exclusive.  Isolated  exceptional  cases  turn  back 
upon  the  theory,  and  prove  exactly  the  opposite ;  viz., 
that  the  criteria  intermingle,  which  is  tantamount  to 
saying  that  they  are  no  criteria  at  all.  In  every  in- 
stance in  which  such  a  mixture  appears,  critics  must 
leave  it  alone ;  and  we  have  a  right  to  claim  it  as 
evidence  on  our  side.  Another  practice,  of  which  we 
have  a  right  to  complain,  is  the  frequent  calling  in  of^ 
a  redactor  to  do  away  with  troublesome  facts.  When 
the  Sinaitic  Decalogue  is  found  to  contain  certain 
characteristically  Deuteronomic  expressions,  Well- 
hausen  is  ready  to  assume  a  Jehovistic  redaction  to 
account  for  it.  We  need  hardly  say,  that  to  such 
cases  the  same  maxim  applies  w^hich  was  laid  down  a 


30  THE   PENTATEUCIIAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

moment  ago.  To  us  the  redactor  is  as  yet  no  living 
personality  :  our  belief  in  his  existence  will,  to  a  large 
extent,  depend  on  the  estimate  we  shall  put  on  the 
critical  analysis.  It  is  very  obvious,  therefore,  that 
to  fall  back  on  his  mysterious  influence  for  the  re- 
moval of  difficulties,  involves  an  o^^^xv  pctitio  principii. 


THE  LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENT  EXAMINED.       3  I 


A 


CHAPTER    III. 

THE  LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENT  EXAMINED. 

WHEN  we  test  the  claims  of  the  critics  by  these 
principles,  the  first  question  is,  what  a  pinori 
right  have  they  to  analyze  the  Pentateuchal  Codes  ? 
The  most  plausible  answer  refers  us  to  the  use  of 
the  divine  names  in  Genesis  in  connection  with  the~ 
fact,  that  the  writers  of  the  Elohistic  and  Jehovistic 
documents  had  evidently  both  planned  a  history 
covering  the  time  from  creation  down  to  the  con- 
quest of  the  Holy  Land.  Here,  however,  a  difficulty 
appears.  The  whole  body  of  Pentateuchal  legisla- 
tion falls  after  Exod.  vi.  2,  3  ;  and  so  the  basis  on 
which  the  right  of  analysis  would  rest,  breaks  down 
immediately.  And,  as  to  the  prospective  features  of 
the  Elohistic  and  Jehovistic  documents,  they  are 
most  easily  accounted  for  by  ascribing  them  to  the 
redaction  of  Moses,  who  may  have  combined  the  two 
so  as  to  form  a  real  unity. 

Still,  we  must  admit  that  these  considerations, 
whilst  they  deprive  the  argument  of  independent 
Value,  do  not  entirely  destroy  its  basis.  There  can 
be  no  objection  against  here  also  using  the  criteria 
furnished  by  an  analysis  of  Genesis,  where  there  cer- 
tainly exists,  in  the  alternation  of  divine  names,  an 
a  priori   right  to    attempt  the  analysis.     If  it  were 


32  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

possible  to  show  that  they  re-appear  after  Exod.  vi. 
2,  3,  with  the  same,  or  even  greater,  frequency  and 
regularity,  in  lengthy  coherent  passages,  which  admit 
of  an  easy  and  natural  separation  from  their  context, 
in  that  case  it  might  not  be  easy  to  dispute  further 
the  claims  of  critical  analysis  to  the  whole  domain  of 
the  Pentateuch.  Both  Kuenen  ("  Hist.  krit.  Onderz.," 
i86i,  i.  p.  85)  and  Delitzsch  ("Genesis,"  4te  Ausg., 
p.  30)  put  the  argument  on  this  basis.  As  we  shall 
see  hereafter,  in  the  hands  of  less  cautious  critics  it 
has  long  since  outgrown  these  modest  beginnings. 

As  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  ascertain,  the  fol- 
lowing words  and  phrases,  considered  as  belonging 
to  the  Elohistic  2lsus  loqitcndi  of  Genesis,  re-appear 
after  Exod.  vi.  2,  3.  Where  they  are  not  too  numer- 
ous, we  shall  add  the  references. 

!•  D"'"\jp  {sojournings  or  pilgrimage),  passim  in  Genesis; 
Exod.  vi.  4. 

2.  ninx  {possessio7i) ,  ten  times  before  Exod.  vi.  4,  passim 
in  Leviticus-Numbers,  once  in  an  Elohistic  passage  of  Deu- 
teronomy, xxxii.  49. 

3.  DD'ninS,  DJiilS,  rnnnS,  and  rni-13  {in  his,  their,  or 
your  generations),  four  times  before  Exod.  vi.  4,  viz.,  Gen. 
vi.  9,  xvii.  7,  9,  12  ;  passim  in  the  middle  books. 

4.  irpS  or  ^nrpS,  r\yr:h>  CinrpS  {after  his,  her,  or  their 
kind),  sixteen  times  before  Exod.  vi.  4,  nine  times  in  Levit- 
icus, four  times  in  Deuteronomy. 

5.  n-TH  DT^n  DVjL'S  {in  the  self- same  day),  three  times 
before  Exod.  vi.  4,  viz.,  Gen.  vii.  13,  xvii.  23,  26  ;  three  times 
in  Exodus,  xii.  17,  41,  51  ;  five  times  in  Leviticus,  xxiii.  14 
(□>•;'  nj')j  21,  28,  29,  30;  once  in  an  Elohistic  passage  of 
Deuteronomy,  xxxii.  48. 


THE   LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENT  EXAMINED.      33 

6.  n'")3  D'pn  {establish  a  covenant^,  six  times  before 
Exod.  vi.  4  ;  once  in  Exodus,  vi.  4  ;  once  in  Leviticus,  xxvi. 
9  ;  once  in  Deuteronomy,  viii.  18  (iT"(3  rnj,  Gen.  xvii.  2, 
Num.  XXV.  12). 

7.  "iDJ-jS  {stranger),,  twice  before  Exod.  vi.  4,  viz.,  Gen. 
xvii.  12,  27;  once  in  Exodus,  xii.  43  ;  once  in  Leviticus, 
xxii.  25. 

8.  N'tyj  {prince'),  four  times  before  Exod.  vi.  4,  viz.,  Gen. 
xvii.  20,  xxiii.  6,  xxv.  16,  xxxiv.  2  ;  four  times  in  Exodus, 
xvi.  22,  xxii.  28,  xxxiv.  31,  xxxv.  27  ;  once  in  I^eviticus,  iv. 
22  ;  sixty- two  times  in  Numbers. 

9.  The  Hiphil  of  I'r  {beget),  fifty-eight  times  before 
Exod.  vi.  4 ;  once  in  Leviticus,  xxv.  45  ;  twice  in  Numbers, 
xxvi.  29,  58 ;  twice  in  Deuteronomy,  iv.  25,  xxviii.  41. 

10.  njpp  {boKght  or  price),  five  times  before  Exod.  vi.  4, 
viz.,  Gen.  xvii.  12,  13,  23,  27,  xxiii.  18  ;  once  in  Exodus,  xii. 
44;  four  times  in  Leviticus,  xxv.  16,  51,  xxvii.  22. 

11.  dSi;;  {for  ever),  with  a  noun  in  construction,  eight 
times  before  Exod.  vi.  4 ;  thirty-eight  times  in  Exodus- 
Numbers ;  four  times  in  Deuteronomy,  xiii.  16,  xv.  17, 
xxxiii.  15,  27. 

12.  "^DT-S^  {every  male),  seven  times  before  Exod.  vi.  4; 
once  in  Exodus,  xii.  48 ;  three  times  in  Leviticus,  vi.  18,  29, 
vii.  6  ;  thirteen  times  in  Numbers. 

13.  v'lK'  {J^ring  forth  abundantly') ,  and  yyy^  {creeping 
thing),  seven  times  before  Exod.  vi.  4 ;  twice  in  Exodus, 
i.  7,  viii.  3  ;  passim  in  Leviticus ;  Deuteronomy  xiv.  19. 

14.  "Ti^p  ij^p  {exceedingly) ,  four  times  before  Exod.  vi.  4, 
viz.,  Gen.  vii.  19,  xvii.  2,  6,  20 ;  once  in  Exodus,  i.  7 ;  once 
in  Numbers,  xiv.  7. 

15.  r;'J3  ]">«  {land  of  Canaan),  passim  before  Exod. 
vi.  4  ;  once  in  Exodus,  xvi.  35  ;  three  times  in  Leviticus, 
xiv.  34,  xviii.  3,  xxv.  t^Z  ;  passim  in  Numbers ;  Deuteronomy 
xxxii.  49. 


34  THE  PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

i6.  riDil  TT^D  {be  fruitful  and  multiply)^  passi?H  in  Gen- 
esis, Lev.  xxvi.  9. 

17.  r\yr>':i  {gathering  together),  Gen.  i.  10,  Exod.  vii.  19, 
Lev.  xi.  36. 

18.  r\h2\^  {food),  four  times  before  Exod.  vi.  4,  viz.,  Gen. 
i.  29,  30,  vi.  21,  ix.  3;  once  in  Exodus,  xvi.  15  ;  twice  in 
Leviticus,  xi.  39,  xxv.  6. 

19.  E^D"^  {creep),  and  t^^n  {creeping  thing),  passim  in 
Genesis ;  three  times  in  Leviticus,  xi.  44,  46,  xx.  25  ; 
Deuteronomy  iv.  18. 

20.  Tlie  emphatic  repetition  of  riK^;^  with  |3  (^^  //<f  did), 
once  in  Genesis,  vi.  22  ;  six  times  in  Exodus,  vii.  6,  xii.  28, 
50,  xxxix.  32,  43,  xl.  16  ;  three  times  in  Numbers,  i.  54,  viii. 
20,  xvii.  26. 

21.  The  Hiphil  of  SiS  {separate),  five  times  in  Gen.  i. ; 
once  in  Exodus,  xxvi.  t^t^  ;  passim  in  Leviticus ;  four  times 
in  Deuteronomy,  iv.  41,  x.  8,  xix.  7,  xxix.  21. 

22.  nDp]^  "^Dr  {male  and  female),  six  times  before  Exod. 
vi.  4,  viz.,  Gen.  i.  27,  v.  2,  vi.  19,  vii.  3,  9,  16  ;  four  times  in 
Leviticus,  iii.  i,  6  (ix-Dx),  xii.  7  (ij^),  xv.  ^iZ  C?]"'?)^  Deut. 
iv.  16  (in). 

23.  Sx'^ty'-nn;;  bnp  {the  assenibly  of  the  congregation  of 
Israel),  Exod.  xii.  6,  and  Num.  xiv.  5. 

24.  '£)S  {according  to),  once  before  Exod.  vi.  4,  viz.,  Gen. 
xlvii.  12;  three  times  in  Exodus,  xii.  4,  xvi.  16,  18;  twice 
■n  Leviticus,  xxv.  16,  xxvii.  16;  twice  in  Numbers,  ix.  17, 
.cxvi.  54. 

25.  1^33  {soul),  in  the  sense  of  " person," /czj-i-/;;/  before 
Exod.  vi.  4 ;  in  Exodus-Numbers,  passim. 

26.  nj  {stranger),  twice  before  Exod.  vi.  4,  viz..  Gen.  xv. 
13,  xxiii.  4;  Exodus-Deuteronomy,  passim. 

27.  3K^in  {sojour7ier),  once  before  Exod.  vi.  4,  viz.,  Gen. 
xxiii.  4  ;  once  in  Exodus,  xii.  45  ;  Lev.  xxii.  10  ;  seven  times 
in  Lev.  xxv. ;  Num.  xxxv.  15. 


THE   LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENT  EXAMINED.       35 

28.  it:;3-S3  {all  flesh),  passim  in  Genesis;  three  times 
in  Leviticus,  xvii.  14;  Num.  xvi.  22,  xviii.  15,  xxvii.  16; 
Deut.  V.  23. 

29.  nnsty  {maidservant),  passim  before  Exod.  vi.  4  ; 
Exod.  xi.  5,  Lev.  xix.  20. 

30.  niriiJiZ/rp'p  {according  to  families),  with  suffixes,  passim 
in  Genesis  ;  Exodus-Numbers,  passi?n. 

31-  ;?1J  {expire),  passim  in  Genesis;  Num.  xvii.  26,  28, 
XX.  3,  29. 

32,  tontr;  {slay),  twice  before  Exod.  vi.  4,  viz.,  Gen.  xxii. 
10,  xxxvii.  31  ;  Exodus-Numbers,  passim. 

Z?i'  r^nt!^  {destroy),  in  the  Piel  and  Hiphil  species, /iZJ-j-/;;^ 
before  Exod.  vi.  4  ;  passion  in  Exodus-Deuteronomy. 

34.  i:^;!">  (^<?/) ,  and  t:;0"i  {substance),  passim  in  Genesis; 
Num.  xvi.  32,  XXXV.  3. 

35.  ni<rp  {hundred),  passim  in  Genesis;  passim  in 
Exodus-Numbers. 

36.  "3  Sj<  ;'pr>  {hearken  tinto),  four  times  before  Exod. 
vi.  4,  viz.,  Gen.  iii.  17,  xvi.  11,  xxi.  17,  xxxix.  10  ;  Exod.  vi.  9, 
16,  20. 

37.  5<inn  K^SJn  nn")3ji  (//m/  soul  shall  be  cut  off).  Gen. 
xvii.  14  ;  passim,  Exodus-Numbers. 

38-  pjp   {substance),  Gen.  xxxiv.  23,  xxxvi.  6;  Lev.  xxii. 


We  find  accordingly  that  thirty-eight  words  and 
phrases  in  all,  which  are  claimed  in  Genesis  to  be- 
long to  the  ustis  loqtiendi  of  the  Elohist,  re-appear 
after  Exod.  vi.  2,  3.  At  first  blush,  the  not  inconsid- 
erable number  might  impress  us  ;  but,  after  the  ne- 
cessary sifting,  a  very  scanty  harvest  will  remain. 
There  is  much  in  this  collection  that  cannot  stand 
the  test  of  our  principles  laid  down  above  (pp.  25  jf). 


36  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

1.  Some  of  these  terms  occur  only  in  Gen.  xvii., 
which  is  confessedly  a  chapter  of  legal  contents  ;  so 
that  their  re-appearance  in  the  Codes  has  nothing  to 
do  with  Elohistic  or  Jehovistic  authorship.  The 
fact,  that  they  are  nowhere  else  found  in  Genesis, 
warrants  us  to  consider  them  as  legal  expressions. 
This  rules  out  njpp '°  (besides  Gen.  xvii.,  only  in 
xxiii.  i8),  1DT-S3'2  (besides  Gen.  xvii.,  only  in  xxxiv., 
and  there  likewise  with  reference  to  circumcision). 
'i3J-||7  ri*inS3  with  suffixes  (only  once  besides  Gen. 
xvii.,  viz.,  vi.  9). 

2.  Likewise  we  must  exclude  from  the  list  all  words 
that  occur  only  once  or  twice  in  Genesis,  since  it  is 
an  open  fallacy  to  conclude  from  such  few  cases  that 
they  are  Elohistic.  This  applies  to  nipp  ^^  (only  in 
Gen.  i.  10),  the  emphatic  phrase  nt^;'  jii^o  (once, 
Gen.  vi.  22),  '3'7  24  (once  in  Genesis,  xlvii.  12),  ^V^ 
(twice,  XV.  13,  xxiii.  4),  Td^'p\^^  (only  in  xxiii.  4),  Dnu^32 
(xxii.  10,  xxxvii.  31),  j'Jp^^  (Gen.  xxxiv.  23,  xxxvi.  6). 
In  all  such  cases,  the  occasional  use  in  Genesis  is 
probably  nothing  but  a  prolepsis  of  legal  terms. 

3.  Neither  can  we  admit  as  characteristic  those 
words  which,  though  perhaps  frequent  in  Genesis, 
appear  in  the  Codes  in  one  or  two  instances  at  most. 
It  is  evident  that  such  isolated  words  are  no  index  of 
style.  To  this  class  belong  D"?;?'  (only  in  Exod.  vi. 
4),  nxD  ni5o^4  (Exod.  i.  7,  Num.  xiv.  7),  nn-j]  n^a^^ 
(Lev.  xxvi.  9),  nnsiy^g  (Lev.  xix.  20),  ;nJ3i  (Num.  xvii. 
and  XX.),  w:^'-\^\  and  iyo-}34  (Num.  xvi.  32,  xxxv.  3), 
"J  S^  ;»DK/36  (only  in  Exod.  vi.). 

4.  Our  rule  stated  above,  under  No.  5,  page  28, 
forbids  us  to  accept  as  criteria  of  the  Elohist,  words 


THE  LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENT  EXAMINED.       37 

which  are  found  also  in  confessedly  Jehovistic  pas- 
sages. Instances  of  this  are  ^^'m^  (Exod.  xxii.  28 
(27)),  nn*^33  (Exod.  xxi.  26,  xxxii.  7),  "i3  ^^  r^tr^s^  (Gen. 
xvi.  II,  Jehovist  according  to  Schrader,  Knobel, 
Kayser,  Dillmann  ;  xxxix.  10,  Jehovist  according  to 
Schrader,  Kayser,  Dillmann),  \\\X^  ]*"».»?  ^5  (Gen.  xlvii. 
13,  Jehovist  according  to  Schrader,  Kayser). 

5.  Of  the  residuum,  a  considerable  number  of 
words  are  so  intimately  related  to  the  idea  to  be 
expressed  or  the  thing  to  be  mentioned,  that  it  is 
absurd  to  call  in  the  influence  of  Elohistic  style  to 
explain  their  occurrence.  The  thought  and  expres- 
sion were  inseparable,  so  that  the  presence  of  the 
former  necessarily  involved  that  of  the  latter.  If 
the  Jehovist  had  found  occasion  to  convey  the  same 
ideas,  we  may  expect  that  he  would  have  employed 
the  same  forms.  It  remains  only  to  ask  why  these 
ideas  and  conceptions  are  peculiar  to  the  Elohist,  but 
here  also  the  answer  is  obvious.  Critics  have  assigned 
the  ritual  legislation  to  the  Elohist  exclusively,  and 
consider  his  narrative  in  Genesis  as  subsidiary  to 
this.  It  is  no  wonder,  then,  that  the  expressions  in 
question  are  found  neither  in  the  Jehovistic  Code  nor 
in  the  corresponding  narrative.  We  believe  that  the 
author  did  not  use  them  in  Exod.  xx.-xxiii.  because 
he  did  not  touch  the  subjects  which  would  have  given 
him  occasion  to  do  so.  The  following  words  are  of 
this  character :  I'rrpSj^  occurring  only  where  the  dis- 
tinction of  species  is  referred  to  ;  and  even  then  it 
is  not  used  exclusively,  for  the  Elohist  knows  and 
employs  the  synonymous  term  Dn'onpit/'p^  also  (Gen. 
viii.    19,    Elohistic    according    to    Hupfeld,    Knobel, 


38  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

Schrader).  It  is  difficult  to  see  how  this  word  could 
have  found  a  place  in  the  Covenant-law.  The  only 
occasions  on  which  the  Elohist  uses  it  are  in  his  ac- 
count of  the  creation,  of  the  flood,  and  in  the  laws  of 
food.  Lev,  xi.  When  the  Deuteronomist  treats  of  the 
same  topic,  he,  too,  employs  the  very  same  expression. 
dSi;'"  with  a  noun  in  construction  (often  followed  by 
070"^"'^  2),  and  the  phrase  J^inn  t:/?^n  nn-ipji^s?  appear 
only  as  sanctioning  laws  that  constitute  the  essential 
peculiarity  of  the  theocratic  people,  such  as  circum- 
cision, the  passover,  offerings,  etc.,  and  accordingly 
could  not  be  looked  for  in  the  Covenant-law,  which 
is  rather  ethical  and  civil.  ]"?t^'3  means  "to  creep;" 
and,  if  the  Jehovist  never  employs  the  word,  it  is 
simply  because  he  nowhere  refers  to  a  creeping 
thing.  It  is  so  little  characteristic  of  the  Elohist, 
that  he  himself  substitutes  for  it  a  number  of  times 
the  synonyme  tr^'D^.'^  Xhe  Hiphil  of  ^"13^'  is  evi- 
dently a  ritual  term  (compare  Ezek.  xxii.  26,  xlii.  20, 
SnS  lynpn  \i  Vn^n),  denoting  the  divinely  consti- 
tuted difference  between  "holy"  and  "profane." 
Hence  also  it  occurs  in  Gen.  i.,  where  the  various 
created  bodies  and  elements  are  represented  as 
classified  and  distinguished  from  the  beginning  ac- 
cording to  a  principle  that  regulated  the  plan  of  a 
holy  Creator.  Of  course,  the  Jehovistic  legislation 
is  not  concerned  with  such  distinctions,  i^^p.^^  ^T\^^ 
denotes  the  physical  sex-distinction  :  to  designate  the 
ethical  personality,  the  Elohist  chooses  ST\t'^\  t:^'X  as 
well  as  the  Jehovist  (Exod.  xxxvi.  6  ;  Lev.  xxiii.  29,  38 ; 
Num.  V.  6,  vi.  2.  xxx.  17).  And  the  Jehovist  knows 
n^pji   -^pr   also,  and  uses  it  occasionally  (Gen.  vii.  3, 


THE   LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENT  EXAMINED.       39 

Jehovist  according  to  Schrader,  Knobel).  ti'Si^s  in 
the  sense  of  **  person  : "  An  examination  of  the 
passages  in  Genesis  discloses  the  fact  that  the  word 
occurs  almost  exclusively  (when  it  has  this  sense 
of  ''  person ")  in  connection  with  numerals.  This 
explains  fully  why  it  does  not  re-appear  in  the 
Covenant-law,  but  rather  in  Leviticus  and  Numbers. 
There  it  denotes  frequently  the  legal  personality  of 
man,  that  which  constitutes  him  responsible  to  God 
and  his  law.  Hence  the  frequent  use  of  '3  t^?*.  10 
introduce  certain  laws,  especially  in  Leviticus.  That 
this  introduction  is  lacking  in  Exod.  xx.-xxiii.  is 
partly  accounted  for  by  the  general  (less  personal  or 
individual)  tenor  of  these  laws,  partly  because,  as 
Keil  remarks,  in  many  of  them  the  predicate  of  the 
sentence  makes  provision  rather  for  the  object  than 
for  the  subject  of  the  action  referred  to,  so  that  the 
construction  of  the  sentence  forbade  the  emphatic, 
personal  mention  of  the  subject  by  '3  i^s;  at  the 
beg^innino:.  n}<:3,35  in  construction,  is  not  character- 
istic  of  the  Elohist ;  since  he  uses  the  absolute  state 
just  as  frequently,  and  the  Jehovistic  legislation  had 
no  occasion  to  employ  this  numeral.  The  expres- 
sions nna  D'pn  6  and  n^-^a  |nj  are  not  entirely  synony- 
mous with  the  Jehovistic  n'"!3  ri"!^.  In  the  latter,  the 
idea  of  a  covenant  made  with  sacrifice  is  rendered 
prominent,  and  the  concurrence  of  two  parties  em- 
phasized (compare  Ps.  1.  6)  ;  whilst  in  n'-)3  D'pn  and 
r\n3  jOJ,  the  fact  is  brought  out,  that  the  covenant- 
relation  springs  from  God's  free  grace ;  that  he 
stoops  to  man,  and  establishes  his  covenant  amongst 
men,  who   could   not   advance   to   meet   him.     It   is 


40  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC, 

quite  natural,  therefore,  that  in  Exod.  xx.-xxiii,,  the 
phrase  jT-i3  Tr\2  should  repeatedly  occur  (xxiii.  32, 
xxiv.  8  ;  compare  also  xxxiv.  27) ;  since,  according  to 
xxiv.  4,  5,  the  Sinaitic  covenant  was  solemnly  con- 
tracted with  the  offering  up  of  sacrifices,  n-jn^^  2  occurs 
only  six  times  outside  of  the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua, 
if  we  except  Ezek.  xl.-xlviii.,  where  it  is  in  frequent 
use.  Num.  xxxii.  22,  which  Schrader  and  Kayser 
assign  to  the  Jehovist,  shows  that  the  word  does  not 
belong  exclusively  to  the  Elohistic  diction.  It  de- 
notes permanent  and  firmly  held  property,  in  contrast 
with  the  unsettled,  nomadic  life  of  the  patriarchs  and 
the  Israelites  in  the  desert.  This  explains  its  disap- 
pearance from  the  common  language  after  the  con- 
quest of  Canaan,  and  its  resumption  by  Ezekiel,  who 
wrote  during  the  captivity.  As  a  proper  name,  we 
find  it  in  Gen.  xxvi.  26,  a  passage  which  Schrader  and 
Kayser  give  to  the  Jehovist.  T^^jy  orn  DV;'3  5  appears 
twelve  times  in  the  Pentateuch ;  in  each  of  these 
cases,  it  serves  to  mark  out  the  accurate  date  of  a 
momentous  event:  Gen.  vii.  13,  Noah's  entering  the 
ark  ;  xvii,  23,  26,  the  first  circumcision  ;  Exod.  xii. 
17,  41,  51,  the  exodus  from  Egypt;  Lev.  xxiii.  14, 
the  second  day  of  Mazzoth  ;  ver.  21,  the  feast  of 
weeks  ;  ver.  28,  29,  30,  the  day  of  atonement ;  Deut. 
xxxii.  48,  the  announcement  of  Moses'  death. 
f  It  is  an  exceedingly  small  group  to  which  the  host 
/  of  ''satellites"  marshalled  by  the  critics  has  thus 
J  gradually  dwindled  down.  Three  words  only,  dSdx/^ 
\  the  Hiphil  of  •i^;,9  and  ntya-S^.^s  have  not  found  an 
I  explanation.  The  last  two  are  found  only  once  in 
^     the   Levitical   code,  the   first   one  tv/ice.     The  Oal- 


THE   LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENT  EXAMINED.       4I 

species  of  iV,  which  (in  the  sense  of  "begetting") 
the  critics  claim  as  characteristically  Jehovistic,  does 
not  occur  in  Exod.  xx.-xxiii.  ;  for  in  xx.  4,  it  means 
*' to  bear."  The  fact  that  these  three  terms  occur 
only  in  the  Levitical  law  is  hardly  striking  enough  to 
need  an  explanation. 

If  thus  the  argument  drawn  from  the  Elohistic 
2istis  loq7ic7idi  of  Genesis  proves  to  be  worthless^  we 
can  have  no  great  expectations  of  the  independent 
evidence  collected  from  the  Codes  themselves.  To 
say  that  the  Levitical  law  employs  a  ceremonial  ter- 
minology which  is  wanting  in  the  Jehovistic  parts  of 
Exodus,  is  true,  but  so  much  so  that  it  amounts  to  a 
truism.-  What  hse  is  there  in  arraying  a  list  of 
names  of  utensils  and  implements  of  the  tabernacle, 
parts  of  the  priestly  apparel,  etc.,  and  then  declaring 
that  they  belong  exclusively  to  the  Elohist }  Still, 
Knobel  has  taken  pains  to  do  this  !  Again,  v/hat  can 
be  made  of  the  Jehovist  not  using  a  sacrificial  phrase 
like  D?37i!n  |'5  {between  the  evenings)  ?  or  such  as  refer 
specifically  to  the  religious  life  of  Israel,  on  which  the 
Jehovist  did  not  legislate  at  all  ?  It  sounds  strange 
when  we  hear  'c;ip  «";)jp?  {//ofy  eonvocation)  classed 
as  an  Elohistic  phrase.  Do  the  critics  mean,  that  in 
the  time  of  Jehoshaphat,  or  whatever  date  they  may 
choose  to  fix  for  the  Origin  of  the  Covenant-law,  no 
such  "holy  convocations'*  were  held  .^  And,  if  not, 
where  is  the  slightest  trace  of  proof  that  the  Jehovist 
has  another  word  to  designate  the  same  thing }  We 
cannot  but  infer  that  he  had  no  occasion  to  use  the 
word,  and  that  this  is  the  one  and  the  only  reason 
why  the  word  is  not  found  in  his  vocabulary.     He 


42  THE  PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

does  use  a  similar  phrase,  however,  in  Exod.  xxii.  30 
(31) ;  viz.,  ir^ip  'm;<^  {holy  men).  What  is  to  be  thought 
of  Elohistic  words  which  do  not  occur  even  once  in 
the  whole  book  of  Leviticus,  such  as  i~>i><?Y  {hosts), 
D'psiy  {judgments)  ?  or  of  ri'p>»  {jieighbor),  which  ap- 
pears only  in  laws  of  injury  done  to  a  neighbor, 
whilst,  moreover,  the  Elohist  employs  the  synony- 
mous |32^  and  V."^  in  common  with  the  Jehovist  just  as 
well  ?  Besides  ]*.7^?n  J^^J?*  the  Old  Testament  knows 
no  other  word  for  *'  native  of  the  land  ; "  and  so  we 
will  have  to  hold  that  its  absence  in  the  Jehovist  has 
no  further  cause  than  a  want  of  occasion  to  use  it. 
It  is  useless  to  collect  here  all  the  pretended  evi- 
dence of  this  and  like  character,  except  in  so  far  as 
it  might  furnish  an  apt  illustration  of  the  ease  with 
which  some  critics  make  the  transition  from  proving 
a  theory  to  applying  it,  all  the  while  forgetting  that 
their  application,  as  it  results  in  a  rcdnctio  ad  absnj'- 
dmny  instead  of  fortifying,  practically  weakens,  all 
the  previous  evidence. 

We  now  turn  to  the  Jehovistic  part  of  the  Mosaic 
Code.  The  passages,  Exod.  xii.  24-27,  xiii.  3-10,  11- 
16,  are  assigned  to  it  by  Knobel,  Dillmann,  Noldeke, 
Schrader,  Kayser  (Dillmann  and  Kayser,  in  addition, 
xii.  21-24).  Here,  also,  it  is  claimed  that  the  dissec- 
tion rests  on  solid  literary  grounds,  which  we  shall 
have  to  examine. 

First,  the  proper  name  D't^yp  {Egypt),  not  preceded 
by  the  usual  t^?^  {land),  xii.  27.  But  neither  form, 
with  or  without  V7^'  is  exclusively  used  by  either  the 
Jehovist  or  the  Elohist.  The  former  uses  the  form 
with  y^^5.  Gen.  xiii.  10  (according  to  Schrader,  Knobel, 


THE  LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENT  EXAMINED.       43 

Kayser,  Dillmann),  and  xxi.  21  (according  to  Kayser)  ; 
also  Exod.  xxii.  20.  The  Elohist,  on  the  other  hand, 
employs  that  without  ]*;^^?,  Gen.  xlvi.  6-^^  (according 
to  Hupfeld,  Knobel,  Schrader,  Dillmann). 

Next  comes  D'"!?r,  ri'3  {Jwitse  of  bondmen),  xiii.  3,  4. 
This  is  used  only  here  and  in  xx.  2  ;  also  four  times 
in  Deuteronomy.  But  the  fact  that  the  phrase  does 
not  occur  before  the  exodus  shows  that  its  use 
does  not  depend  on  the  style  of  the  writer,  but  on 
the  intention  of  the  law-giver.  The  reference  to  the 
bondage  of  Egypt  is  urged  as  a  motive  to  faithful 
observance  of  God's  commands  ;  and,  of  course,  this 
was  only  appropriate  in  such  laws  as  directly  re- 
minded the  people  of  their  sojourn  in  Egypt  (Pass- 
over, Mazzoth,  Treatment  of  strangers  and  servants), 
and  suited  ethical  commands  better  than  ceremonial 
prescriptions,  which  were  given  to  the  priests,  not 
addressed  to  the  people  in  general. 

T3J^  lyin  {tJie  month  Abib),  xiii.  4;  also,  xxiii.  15, 
xxxiv.  18;  Deut.  xvi.  i.  A  comparison  of  all  the 
passages  will  show,  that,  wherever  a  specific  date  is 
given,  the  month  is  numbered  also ;  and,  wherever 
the  date  is  left  indefinite,  the  month  is  designated  by 
the  name  Abib.  In  all  these  pretended  Jehovistic 
passages,  there  is  no  specification  ;  and  accordingly 
Abib  is  retained.  Of  Wellhausen's  assertion,  that 
the  custom  of  numbering  the  months,  in  connection 
with  the  adoption  of  the  spring  era,  was  derived 
from  the  Babylonians  during  the  captivity,  we  shall 
have  occasion  to  speak  hereafter. 

nin;  ;^3i!^j  {Jehovah  szuair),  xiii.  5,  11,  xxxii.  13, 
xxxiii.  I.     But  the  Levitical  law  contains  no  refer- 


44  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

ence  to  God's  swearing,  neither  is  it  easy  to  see 
at  what  occasion  it  could  have  introduced  God  as 
doing  so. 

The  enumeration  of  the  seven  Canaanitish  nations, 
xiii.  5  ;  also,  xxiii.  23,  28,  xxxiii.  2,  xxxiv.  11.  But  it 
is  not  merely  this  complete  enumeration  which  is  pe- 
culiar to  the  Jehovist,  but  the  idea  that  the  Israelites 
shall  possess  the  land  of  the  Canaanite  tribes.  He 
conveys  this  idea  without  the  same  enumeration, 
Gen.  xiii.  7,  xxxiv.  30 :  in  Exod.  xxiii.  28,  only  three 
tribes  are  mentioned.  That  the  idea  is  found  with 
him  rather  than  with  the  Elohist  is  natural ;  since 
the  critics  assign  to  the  latter  only  ritual  law,  with 
wdiich  it  stands  in  no  way  related.  And,  even  if  we 
suppose  that  it  was  peculiar  to  the  Jehovistic  docu- 
ment in  Genesis,  what  wonder  would  there  be  in 
Moses'  repeating  the  phrase  1  How  do  we  know  that 
he  cannot  have  appropriated  some  elements  of  the 
diction  of  the  documents  } 

"dyy}  ^Sn  nnr  ]'^^?  {land  floiuing  zvitJi  milk  and  Jionc))^ 
xiii.  5,  xxxiii.  3.  This  phrase  occurs  also  in  Lev.  xx. 
24.  In  Num.  xiv.  8,  Schrader  is  obliged  to  divide  a 
single  verse  to  eliminate  it  from  an  Elohistic  con- 
text. This  must  accordingly  be  given  up  as  peculiarly 
Jehovistic. 

Snj  {quarters  or  borders),  xiii.  7,  occurs  in  the  Elo- 
histic passages,  Gen.  xxiii.  12  ;  Num.  xx.  23,  xxxiv. 
3,  6,  xxxv.  26,  and  elsewhere.  How  this  can  be 
called  Jehovistic  may  remain  for  the  critics  to  deter- 
mine. The  word  occurs  throughout  the  whole  Old 
Testament. 

*iu;'_3  {pccanse)y  xiii.  8 ;  also,  xix.  9,  xx.  20 ;  passim 


THE  LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENT  EXAMINED.      45 

in  Genesis.  The  expression  is  of  frequent  occur- 
rence in  the  Old  Testament,  from  Amos  down  to 
Chronicles.  It  is  absurd  to  call  it  the  peculiar  prop- 
erty of  the  Jehovist,  since  it  belonged  evidently  to 
the  common  stock  of  the  language. 

"tnn  {in  time  to  conic),  Exod.  xiii.  14,  xxxii.  5  ;  Num. 
iv.  25,  xvi.  7,  16.  The  two  latter  passages  are  by 
both  Noldeke  and  Schrader  assigned  to  the  Elohist, 
so  that  the  word  ceases  to  be  characteristically  Jeho- 
vistic.  Moreover,  the  Elohist  has  it  in  somewhat 
different  form,  i^"jn;3p.  Lev.  xxiii.  11,  15,  16. 

With  regard  to  the  Decalogue  our  task  is  easy ; 
since  the  critics  all  admit  that  the  criteria  of  Jehovist, 
Elohist,  and  Deuteronomist  intermingle.  The  sanc- 
tion added  to  the  Sabbath-command,  ver.  11,  refers 
back  to  the  Elohistic  account  of  the  creation.  Also 
the  phrase  hdj^So  niy>'  {do  work)  is  Elohistic.  T"1X'^^ 
(///  thy  gates),  in  ver.  10,  is  Deuteronomic.  Well- 
hausen  claims  the  same  for  the  whole  of  ver.  6, 
D"'?;*^  n'5p  {^fro^n  the  house  of  bondincji)  is  Jehovistic. 
The  whole  Decalogue,  however,  forms  a  strict  unit, 
and  the  critical  analysis  will  not  apply.  To  assume  a 
post-Deuteronomic  redaction,  or  even  modifications 
later  than  the  final  redaction  of  the  Pentateuch 
(Dillmann),  seems  precarious,  and  in  the  highest 
degree  improbable.  Everybody  who  has  no  precon- 
ceived idea  that  the  Pentateuch  must  necessarily  be 
of  composite  character,  and  have  gone  through  a 
series  of  redactions,  will  not  fail  to  find  in  these 
phenomena  a  striking  proof  that  the  author  of  the 
legislation  employed  words  from  the  Elohistic,  Jeho- 
vistic, and  Deuteronomic  vocabulary  promiscuously. 


46  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

The  passage,  Exod.  xx.  i8-xxiii.,  remains  to  be 
^examined.  Here  also  we  have  an  illustration  of 
criteria  intermingling,  on  account  of  which  the  re- 
dactor is  again  resorted  to.  Wellhausen  assigns  chap. 
xxi.-xxiii.  to  J.'  Dillmann  thinks  they  were  taken 
by  B  (Wellhausen's  E)  from  another  source.  With 
regard  to  xxxiv.  10-25,  Dillmann  tries  to  vindicate 
the  authorship  of  C  ;  whilst  Wellhausen  assumes  a 
tertiuni  quid,  an  unknown  source,  neither  Q  nor  J 
nor  E,  from  which  this  piece  alone  has  been  pre- 
served to  us.  Dillmann,  moreover,  gives  as  his  opin- 
ion that  the  whole  passage,  xxxiv.  1-28,  is  out  of  place 
in  the  present  connection,  and  stood  in  C  originall}-, 
behind  xx.  20,  xxiv.  1,2;  so  that  the  redactor  must 
have  taken  the  twofold  liberty  of  first  substituting 
the  Covenant-laws,  xx.-xxiii.,  for  those  found  in  C 
(now  chap,  xxxiv.  10-26),  and  of  afterwards  using 
the  opportunity  offered  him  by  the  breach  and 
restoration  of  the  Covenant,  to  resume  what  he  had 
first  thrown  out.  It  is  alike  needless  and  useless 
to  follow  the  critics  into  this  labyrinth  of  dissections, 
transpositions,  and  interpolations,  by  which  they 
condemn  themselves,  and  frequently  each  other. 
Perhaps  a  dozen  other  ways  might  be  devised  to 
transform  a  beautifully  connected  passage  into  a 
miserable  patchwork.  A  comparison  of  the  criteria 
will  suffice  to  convince  any  unprejudiced  mind  how 
impossible  it  is  to  prove  diversity  of  authorship  on 

^  In  the  nomenclature  of  Wellhausen,  the  Elohist  is  O,  the  Jehovist  JE, 
made  up  from  two  sources,  J,  the  Jahvist,  and  E,  the  second  Elohist.  Dill- 
mann calls  the  Elohist  A,  the  second  Elohist  B,  and  the  Jehovist  C.  This 
last  corresponds,  not  to  the  composite  Jehovist  of  Wellhausen,  but  to  what  he 
denominates  the  Jahvist. 


THE  LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENT  EXAMINED,       47 

literary  grounds.  For  the  traces  of  B,  compare 
Dillmann,  "  Exodus,"  p.  220.  To  C  belong,  amongst 
others,  n^n  {divide),  xxi.  35  ;  np;;v  {cry),  xxii.  22  ;  r>:n 
HTfn  {beast  of  the  field)  y  xxiii.  12;  nor  niD  (shall  surely 
be  put  to  death),  passim;  p"l  {pnly),  xxi.  19  ;  ^^p  {curse), 
xxi.  17.  Of  A  we  note  the  following  words:  N'm 
{prince,  rule?),  xxii.  27  ;  "^J  {strange}),  xxii.  20 ;  r\nE^ 
{destroy),  xxi.  27 ;  Dp.vn  ]-i«  (Z^/^^aT  ^/  Egypt),  xxi.  20, 
xxiii.  8 ;  ^i<  rv\T\  {anger  burn),  xxii.  23  (in  Genesis 
the  Jehovist  is  said  to  use  nin  as  impersonal,  with 
the  preposition  S).  The  statement  in  xxiii.  18  has  a 
Deuteronomic  color. 

In  Leviticus,  chap,  xvii.-xxvi.  have  been  partially- 
denied  to  the  Elohist.  Ewald,  Noldeke,  and  Schra- 
der  accounted  for  the  peculiarity  of  chap,  xviii.-xx. 
by  the  use  which  the  Elohist  had  made  of  an  older 
Code.  Graf  assigned  xvii.-xxii.,  xxv.,  xxvi.,  to  Ezekiel. 
Kayser,  not  content  to  deal  with  the  material  in  such 
a  summary  way,  institutes  a  marvellous  analysis 
carried  out  with  hair-splitting  finesse.  He  agrees 
with  Graf  in  considering  Ezekiel  as  the  author,  and 
confidently  claimed  in  1874  to  have  settled  this  fact 
beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt.  Three  years  after- 
wards, however,  this  theory  had  been  already  super- 
seded ;  since  Klostermann  instituted  a  still  closer 
comparison  between  Ezekiel  and  these  chapters, 
which  showed,  that,  with  much  similarity,  there  were 
also  considerable  differences  in  expression,  making 
the  view  untenable.  With  him  Kuenen  and  Noldeke 
agreed ;  whereupon  the  former  with  Wellhausen  re- 
versed the  order,  and  declared  the  chapters  one  of 
the  earliest  exilic  bodies  of  law  composed  in  depend- 


48  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

ence  upon  EzcKiel,  a  sort  of  bricige  between  him  and 
the  Pentateuchal  Codes.  Dillmann  says  emphatically 
that  for  all  this  there  is  no  ground  in  the  contents 
and  language  of  these  chapters,  which  he  regards  as 
containing  very  old,  even  some  of  the  oldest,  laws. 
The  redactor  composed  the  collection  from  two 
different  redactions  of  what  Dillmann  calls  the  ''  Sina- 
itic  Law,"  these  two  redactions  being  respectively 
those  of  the  Elohist  and  the  Jehovist. 

Where  there  is  so  much  disagreement  among  the 
critics,  it  seems  superfluous  to  discuss  the  numerous 
divisions  of  which  the  majority  must  necessarily  be 
wrong.  The  greater  part  of  the  peculiar  expressions 
stated  by  Kayser  (p.  66)  arise  naturally  from  the 
contents  :  some  express  ideas  that  occur  only  here  ; 
several  of  them  are  confessedly  Jehovistic,  others 
Elohistic  ;  the  whole  division  is  arbitrary  and  preca- 
rious, one  of  the  most  striking  proofs  that  the  criti- 
cal analysis,  if  consistently  carried  out,  issues  in 
absurdities.  Ofteri  a  single  verse  is  sundered  out, 
because  it  present^  traces  of  the  Elohist.  And  after 
all,  Kayser  himself  is  obliged  to  confess  that  the 
elimination  of  the  new  source  ("law  of  holiness"), 
though  constituting  a  connected  and  somewhat  cog- 
nate whole,  leaves  the  remaining  parts  incoherent 
and  detached,  without  any  central  idea,  or  guiding 
principle  of  connection. 

It  may  still  further  be  remarked,  that  the  denial  of 
the  Elohist  origin  of  Num.  viii,  23-26  (Kayser  assigns 
it  to  the  redactor)  does  not  rest  on  literary  consid- 
erations, but  is  maintained  in  direct  opposition  to 
the   decidedly   Elohistic   language    of   these  verses, 


THE  LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENT  EXAMINED.      49 

simply  on  account   of  a  pretended   contradiction  to 
chap.  iv.  30. 

We  have  reached  the  end  of  our  discussion  of  the 
literary  argument,  and  may  state  as  our  conclusion, 
that,  whatever  it  be  held  to  prove  with  regard  to 
Genesis,  it  is  incompetent  to  prove  a  diversity  ol 
authorship  for  the  Pentateuchal  Codes.  It  appear^ 
that  the  divisive  methods  partake  rather  of  the  nature  / 
of  an  applied  hypothesis  than  of  a  strictly  linguistic  ' 
argumentation.  The  conviction  that  the  middle 
books  of  the  Pentateuch  are  of  a  composite  char- 
acter may  rest  on  various  grounds.  With  the.  newest 
school  it  is  based  on  a  historical  theory  of  the  de- 
velopment of  the  ceremonial  and  religious  institutions 
for  which  of  necessity  a  literary  counterpart  must  be 
sought.  On  the  whole,  the  work  has  been  carried 
out  for  more  than  a  century  with  marvellous  inge- 
nuity ;  and  the  comparatively  uniform  results  need 
not  surprise  us.  Given  the  preconceived  notion  of 
a  composite  character  in  the  critic's  mind;  given  the 
two  Codes,  though  closely  related,  ~still  sufficiently 
distinct ;  given  furthermore  the  acute  scrutinizing 
and  analyzing  of  a  century,  cautiously  fortifying  all 
weak  points,  and  guarding  against  exposure  on  any 
point  where  any  tolerable  assertion  may  avoid  it,  — 
and  who  can  wonder,  that,  under  the  concurrence  of 
such  favorable  conditions,  results  have  been  obtained 
that  seem  to  equal  in  plausibihty  the  skill  at  work  in 
their  production  ?  But  the  fruit,  however  beautiful 
in  appearance,  has  grown  on  a  tree  radically  different 
from  that  rooted  in  the  soil  of  truly  Evangelical 
Criticism.       Let    us    not    appropriate    theories    and 


50  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

schemes,  at  the  basis  of  which  He  historical  concep- 
tions, that  we  can  never  make  our  own.  The  crit- 
ics may  jump  without  hesitation  from  a  composite 
Genesis  to  a  composite  legislation :  for  us  there  is  a 
wide  gulf  between  the  two,  and  more  than  Christian 
prudence  prevents  us  from  placing  what  claims  to 
be  one  continuous  revelation  of  the  livinc^  God  on 
our  dissecting-tables  before  we  have  been  furnished 
with  positive  and  unequivocal  proof  that  it  is  com- 
posite. All  the  evidence  hitherto  produced  is  such 
that  it  convinces  only  him  who  is  imbued  with  the 
a  priori  belief,  that  there  is  no  divine  revelation  in 
the  law  :  for  all  others,  who  repudiate  such  a  belief, 
it  is  no  more  than  the  outcome  of  a  subtile  and  in- 
genious, but  none  the  less  unfounded  and  deceptive, 
imagination. 


INCOMPLETENESS   OF   THE   CODES.  5  I 


CHAPTER    IV. 

INCOMPLETENESS  OF  THE  CODES. 

IF  we  expect  in  the  Mosaic  Codes  a  complete  legis- 
lation in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word,  we  shall 
surely  be  disappointed.  As  modern  society,  or  even 
Roman  life,  shaped  itself,  it  presents  many  a  feature 
in  its  legislation  for  which  the  Codes  of  ancient 
Israel  have  no  correlative.  But  the  principle  of 
Israel's  constitution  was  radically  different.  The 
theocratic  idea  made  every  thing  subordinate  to  it- 
self ;  and  the  law  presents  this  idea  clothed  in  out- 
ward, ceremonial  and  civil  forms.  Accordingly, 
whatever  is  not  so  directly  related  to  this  one  cen- 
tral conception  as  to  be  moulded  and  transformed  by 
it,  is  omitted,  and  left  to  existing  usage  or  future 
provision.  In  this  respect,  the  law  does  not  preclude 
development  or  increase.  It  has  a  spirit  as  well  as  a 
letter,  however  the  most  recent  critics  may  emphasize 
the  latter,  in  order  to  substitute  the  notion  of  devel- 
opment for  the  former.  On  this  point,  diametrically 
opposite  objections  meet ;  for,  whilst  one  finds  fault 
with  the  law  on  account  of  incompleteness,  another 
finds  it  far  too  elaborate  and  perfect  for  a  nomad 
tribe  just  awaking  to  the  first  consciousness  of  a  life 
of  civilization.     Both  extremes  may  supplement  and 


52  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

correct  each  other.  We  should  constantly  keep  in 
mind,  that  the  Mosaic  legislation  was  intended  for 
a  peculiar  people,  that  had  a  peculiar  destiny.  It 
was  to  live,  to  a  large  extent,  isolated,  and  the  more 
it  could  be  protected  against  contamination  by  for- 
eign influences,  the  better.  There  was  no  need  of  a 
Code  that  would  provide  for  all  the  complicated  re- 
lations that  arise  from  a  lively  intercourse  with  sur- 
rounding peoples.  On  the  other  hand,  the  agrarian 
principle,  on  which  the  civil  law  proceeded,  secured 
to  every  member  of  the  Covenant-people  an  equal 
share  in  the  promised  inheritance  of  Canaan.  It  is 
obvious  how  largely  this  tended  to  simplify  both 
public  and  private  life  among  the  chosen  people.  It 
would  be  historically  wrong  to  institute  a  comparison 
between  the  Mosaic  Codes  and  the  Roman  body  of 
law.  The  Romans  were  the  people  of  law  par  ex- 
cellence:  in  Israel  the  law  was  a  subordinate  means 
to  a  higher  and  spiritual  end,  subservient  and  adapted 
to  the  peculiar  position  which  the  nation  occupied, 
and  to  its  unique  calling  in  the  history  of  God's 
Church. 


SYSTEM,    OR  DISORDER?  53 


CHAPTER    V. 

SYSTEM,  OR  DISORDER? 

ANOTHER  objection  frequently  raised  against 
the  unity  of  these  laws  is,  that  they  present  all 
the  features  of  a  compiled  body,  where  no  guiding- 
thread  combines  the  collected  material.  This  is  in- 
deed doing  little  honor  to  the  redactor  on  the  part 
of  those  who  hold  the  divisive  theories.  But  even 
among  believers  in  the  Mosaic  origin  and  essential 
unity  of  the  Codes,  it  is  not  uncommon  to  hear  the 
remark  made,  that  they  are  not  arranged  systemati- 
cally on  any  legal  or  religious  principle,  and  that  the 
sequence  of  the  laws  is  only  determined  by  the  chro- 
nology of  their  promulgation.  This  statement,  how- 
ever common  it  may  be,  involves  a  double  mistake  : 
First,  by  laying  so  much  stress  on  the  chronological 
principle,  it  tends  to  awaken  the  idea  that  a  system- 
atic and  a  chronological  arrangement  exclude  each 
other ;  and  secondly,  it  would  seem  improper  to 
assert  that  God,  when  revealing  himself,  and  his 
will  concerning  Israel,  in  successive  acts  or  stages, 
should  do  so  without  any  inherent  order. 

Chronology  is  the  frame  of  history ;  and  Israel's 
history  is  nothing  but  the  record  of  God's  revelation, 
its   beginning,  progress,  and   fulfilment.     Separated 


54  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

from  the  world,  that  it  might  be  holy  unto  God,  with 
Israel  every  thing  becomes  subservient  to  this  high 
calling.  Hence  its  history  is  not  shaped  by  accident 
or  chance,  or  according  to  earthly  purposes  :  it  does 
not  run  its  course  independent  of  God's  intentions 
with  regard  to  his  people,  but  flows  from  beginning 
to  end  in  the  channels  of  his  revealing  grace. 

God  is  a  God  of  order.  We  must  therefore  expect, 
if  the  law  be  his  revelation,  and  not  the  fruit  of  a 
blind  process  of  development,  to  find  in  it  a  system, 
an  intended  adjustment  of  part  to  part,  and  of  each 
part  to  the  whole,  a  gradual  progress  and  advance 
from  the  more  fundamental  and  simple  to  the  more 
complex  and  specified  in  detail. 

This  order,  if  there  be  any,  must  be  a  genetic  one. 
God  made  Israel  his  Covenant-people  at  Sinai.  He 
did  not  present  to  them  all  at  once  their  perfect  and 
complete  constitution,  requiring  immediate  conform- 
ity to  its  demands.  Gradually  and  progressively  they 
were  organized  and  built  into  a  theocratic  nation, 
first  on  a  broad  basis,  then  on  a  more  specified  plan, 
till  finally  the  superstructure  appeared  in  its  divinely 
intended  perfection  and  beauty.  The  process  oi  logic 
has  here  become  a  process  in  time  :  the  organism  is 
/shown  to  us,  not  in  the  reality  of  completion,  but  in 
/the  .mirror  of  history,  only  for  this  very  reason  the 
/  more  clear  and  distinct. 

Bertheau  has  found  in  the  Code  of  Exodus-Num- 
bers seven  groups  of  Mosaic  laws,  each  of  them  con- 
taining seven  series,  each  series  ten  commandments. 
The  four  hundred  and  ninety  commands  thus  ob- 
tained, according  to  him,  once  constituted  a  Code  of 


SYSTEM,    OR  DISORDER?  55 

purely  legal  contents,  and  existed  prior  to  the  narra- 
tive which  now  divides  the  groups,  and  is  often  inter- 
woven with  them.  The  hypothesis  is  very  ingenious, 
but  cannot  be  carried  out  without  great  precarious- 
ness  in  details.  Reuss  has  characterized  it  as  '*  a 
beautiful  illusion."  We  shall  have  occasion  to  refer 
to  it  more  than  once. 

First  of  all  we  must  consider  the  charges  that 
ave  been  made  against  the  unity  of  the  feast-laws  in 
Exod.  xii.  and  xiii.  A  survey  of  the  numerous  criti- 
cal divisions  proposed  cannot  be  given  here.  The 
main  divisions,  on  v^rhich  all  critics  more  or  less 
agree,  have  been  stated  before.  They  are^  Exod. 
xii.  24-27,  29-39  (except  ver.  37),  xiii.  3-16,  Jehovis- 
tic,  the  rest  Elohistic. 

A  positive  exposition  of  the  essential  unity  will 
prove  the  best  argument  against  all  these  dissections, 
(i)  xii.  1-20  contain  the  divine  institution  of  Passover 
and  Mazzoth  (unleavened  bread)  as  given  to  Moses 
ami  Aaron.  (2)  xii.  21-27.  The  communication  of 
this  divine  command  to"  the  elders  of  the  people,  so 
far  as  it  was  required  by  immediate  necessity.  For 
the  latter  reason,  only  the  prescriptions  concerning 
the  Passover-lamb  are  repeated,  whilst  the  announce- 
ment of  the  Mazzoth-law  is  reserved  for  a  later  occa- 
sion. Ver.  28  states  the  fulfilment  of  this  command 
on  the  part  of  the  people  in  the  emphatic  phrase, 
*'so  did  they."  (3)  Ver.  29-42  describe  the  last 
plague,  the  exodus,  and  how  the  children  of  Israel 
were  providentially  compelled  to  leave  Egypt  with 
unleavened  dough.  Ver.  40,  seqq.,  contain  a  retro- 
spective glance  at  the  whole  sojourn  in  Egypt  during 


56  THE   PEXTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

four  hundred  and  thirty  years,  which  serves  to 
enforce  anew  the  sacredness  of  the  feast  instituted 
as  a  memorial  of  this  exodus.  (4)  Since  ver.  38  had 
stated  that  a  mixed  multitude  went  up  with  the 
Israelites,  a  new  provision  was  made  necessary  for 
observance  of  the  feast  by  strangers.  This  is  given 
in  ver.  43-51.  (5)  The  divine  command  to  Moses 
that  the  first-born  henceforth  shall  belong  to  Jeho- 
vah, xiii.  I,  2.  (6)  The  communication  of  this  to  the 
people,  ver.  11-16,  after  Moses  had  first  discharged 
the  second  half  of  the  commission  received  before 
the  exodus,  xii.  1-20,  which  was  then  only  partially 
given  to  the  people  on  account  of  the  peculiar  cir- 
cumstances, ver.  3-10. 

All  this  forms  a  well-connected  complete  narrative  ; 

and,  as  we  shall  see,  it  is  only  a  persistent  refusal  to 

/consider  each  single  part  in  the  light  of  the  whole, 

that  can  give  some  semblance    of   necessity  to   the 

application  of  the  critical  knife. 

A  chronological  objection  has  been  raised  against 
xii.  3  ;  for  whilst  xi.  4  falls  evidently  on  Abib  14,  the 
divine  injunction  to  Moses  and  Aaron  must  have 
been  given  before  the  loth,  as  on  the  latter  date  the 
lamb  was  to  be  selected  and  set  apart.  The  difficulty 
disappears  on  the  natural  supposition,  that  the  author 
did  not  wish  to  interrupt  his  narrative  of  the  plagues 
.by  this  law,  and  therefore,  having  reserved  it  up  to 
•:his  point,  uses  the  account  of  its  execution  to  men- 
tion also  its  promulgation,  though  the  latter  actually 
took  place  at  least  four  days  before.  The  expres- 
sion nin  nVSa  in  ver.  8  does  not  contradict  this  ; 
for  it  does  not  designate   the  present  night,  but  the 


SYSTEM,    OK   DISORDER?  57 

night  referred  to  in  the  context,  and  spoken  of  in 
ver.  6. 

Hupf eld's  objection,  that  here  a  memorial  is  insti- 
tuted and  observed  ante  factitin,  has  no  force  at  all. 
The  first  Passover,  as  Wellhausen  has  strikingly 
remarked,  was  no  memorial  feast,  it  was  history;  and 
it  was  a  sacrament,  a  real  instrument  of  salvation. 
Of  the  unwarranted  inferences  which  Wellhausen 
draws  from  this,  we  shall  speak  hereafter.  As  to  the 
fact,  his  statement  is  correct,  and  the  best  answer 
to  Hupfeld's  objection. 

Kayser  alleges  that  the  Elohist  alone  makes  the 
institution  of  Pesach  (Passover)  and  Mazzoth  precede 
the  facts  of  which  they  were  memorials,  whilst  the 
Jehovist  gives  the  more  natural  representation  that  it 
followed  them.  This  is  inaccurate  ;  for  the  Jehovistic 
verses,  as  he  reckons  them,  xii.  21-27,  treat  of  the 
rite,  not  as  to  be  observed  in  the  remote  future,  but 
as  in  the  immediate  present,  during  the  night  of  the 
exodus  :  ver.  23  says,  *'When  He  seeth  the  blood  upon 
the  lintel,"  etc. 

Common  to  nearly  all  the  critics  is  the  statement, 
that  the  Jehovist  (xii.  34)  gives  a  different  explana- 
tion of  the  eating  of  Mazzoth  from  the  Elohist. 
The  truth  is,  that  neither  of  them  gives  an  explana- 
tion at  all.  At  least,  it  is  not  explicitly  stated  in 
the  narrative.  Ver.  34  simply  informs  us  that  the 
Israelites  were  providentially  compelled  to  take  no 
leaven  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  along  on  their 
journey,  which  certainly  had  a  deeper  symbolic  mean- 
ing ;  so  that  it  would  be  exactly  the  Jehovist,  whom 
the  critics   charge  with   having   ascribed   the  origin 


58  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

of  such  an  important  usage  to  so  trifling  an  accident, 
who  intimates  the  real  significance  of  eating  Mazzoth. 

But  we  are  told  ver.  8  of  the  Elohist  is  inconsis- 
tent with  ver.  34.  If  the  flesh  of  the  Passover-lamb 
was  to  be  eaten  with  unleavened  bread,  and  for  this 
purpose,  according  to  ver.  15,  all  leaven  had  to  be 
removed,  how  can  it  be  ascribed  to  the  haste  of  the 
Israelites  in  departing,  that  they  took  their  dough 
before  it  was  leavened  t 

The  answer  is  obvious.  According  to  ver.  21-27, 
only  the  first  half  of  God's  commission  to  Moses 
w^as  communicated  to  the  people  before  the  exodus. 
Concerning  Mazzoth,  as  yet  nothing  was  said.  The 
Israelites  were  simply  instructed  to  kill  the  Pass- 
over-lamb, and  eat  it  with  unleavened  bread.  God 
evidently  intended  that  Moses  should  confine  his 
immediate  instructions  to  this  point.  That  only  the 
Passover-law  was  to  go  into  effect  before  the  exodus, 
is  intimated  by  the  peculiar  position  of  ver,  11-14. 
They  apply  only  to  the  observance  in  Egypt  ;  and 
their  insertion  between  the  Pesach-command  and 
the  Mazzoth-law  shows  that  the  former  was,  the 
latter  was  not,  destined  for  immediate  observance  in 
Egypt.  Plence  the  regulations  concerning  Mazzoth 
are  kept  general  throughout,  as  they  were  evidently 
adapted  to  a  more  remote  period  in  the  future. 
Compare  ver.    19  and  20. 

Now,  if  Moses,  in  agreement  with  God's  purpose, 
published  only  the  Passover-law  immediately  ;  if, 
further,  this  law  neither  commands  nor  forbids  that 
leaven  should  be  altogether  removed,  but  simply  pre- 
scribes that  the  lamb  should  be  eaten  with  iinlcavejiai 


SYSTEM,    OR   DISORDER?  59 

bread, — then  it  is  entirely  natural  that  the  Israelites, 
as  yet  not  knowing  that  the  Passover  would  be  fol- 
lowed byMazzoth,  and  that  the  latter  feast  would  for- 
bid the  presence  of  any  leaven  in  the  houses,  should 
have  kept  their  leaven,  and  were  only  prevented  by 
their  hasty  departure  in  the  morning  from  using  it 
in  the  preparation  of  their  dough  and  bread. 

But  even  if  we  admit  that  all  leaven  was  actually 
removed  for  the  observance  of  this  first  Passover, 
still,  it  is  not  likely  that  the  Israelites  intended  to 
go  on  their  journey  without  providing  leaven.  They 
evidently  thought,  that,  when  the  Passover-night  was 
past,  the  prohibition  had  ceased.  God's  providence, 
however,  as  we  have  seen,  intervened  preparatory  to 
the  promulgation  of  the  Mazzoth-law.  As  Ranke  has 
beautifully  expressed  it,  "Jehovah's  history  and  Jeho- 
vah's law  were  made  by  him  the  mirror  of  each  other." 

Kayser's  allegation  that  ver.  11-13  make  a  violent 
separation  between  10  and  14,  and  are  accordingly 
a  Jehovistic  section  interpolated  by  the  redactor,  is 
groundless.  The  verses  are  entirely  appropriate  in 
this  connection  when  we  understand  them,  as  was 
intimated  above.  They  served,  indeed,  to  make  a 
separation  between  ver.  10  and  14,  though  not  a 
violent,  but  a  necessary  one,  which  should  indicate 
that  only  the  Passover-ordinance  was  to  be  published 
immediately  before  the  Exodus. 

Neither  is  it  true,  as  Kayser  also  asserts,  that  ver. 
22  contradicts  ver.  4  and  7.  That  small  households 
should  combine  for  the  purpose  of  consuming  the 
lamb,  does  not  prove  that  they  joined  each  other 
during  the  night.     They  could  do  this  the  evening 


6o  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

before.  To  press  the  possessive  pronoun  in  ver.  22, 
''  Jiis  house,"  is  absurd. 

It  is  claimed  by  Hupfeld  and  DiUmann,  that  ver. 
42  stands  very  abrupt  in  its  present  connection. 
Hupfeld  asserts  that  it  formed  originally  the  close 
of  the  section,  ver.  1-13  ;  whilst  he  makes  ver.  14 
prospective,  and  belonging  to  the  Mazzoth-law.  As 
Bachmann,  however,  remarks,  the  transition  from  the 
second  person  in  ver.  1-13  to  the  third  in  ver.  42 
(rD^^'V^nS)  would  be  very  strange.  For  this  reason 
Dillmann  helps  himself  in  another  way  by  carrying 
the  verse  back  to  ver.  39,  and  assigning  it  to  B  ; 
though  he  finds  this  hard  to  reconcile  with  the  expres- 
sion ori"^''^  (proper  to  A),  so  that  he  must  also  call  in 
the  redactor  to  account  for  its  insertion.  All  this 
trouble  is  avoided  by  giving  the  verse  its  natural 
and  unforced  meaning.  In  connection  with  the  re- 
trospective glance  at  the  whole  sojourn  in  Egypt 
(ver.  40,  41),  it  contains  a  new  reminder  of  the 
sacredness  of  the  feast  instituted  in  memory  of  the 
deliverance  from  so  long  a  bondage. 

Dillmann,  moreover,  objects  against  the  unity  of 
these  chapters,  that  we  have  here  two  laws  concern- 
ing the  consecration  of  the  first-born,  two  concerning 
Mazzoth,  and  three  about  the  Passover,  of  which  the 
second  (xii.  21,  seqq)  differs  somewhat  from  the  first. 
The  right  view  of  the  relation  of  these  laws  to  each 
other  has  been  given  already,  and  no  other  answer  is 
necessary. 

Finally,  the  remark  has  been  made  that  Moses,  in 
his  instruction  to  the  elders  (ver.  21,  scqq.),  makes  no 
mention  of  unleavened  bread  at  all ;  which  would  fall 


SYSTEM,    OR  DISORDER?  6 1 

in  with  Kayser's  view,  who  combines  these  verses 
with  the  following  Jehovistic  section.  It  is  obvious 
that  we  have  here  no  verbatim  report  of  Moses' 
words,  but  simply  a  summary,  which  could  be  all 
the  shorter  since  the  divine  injunction  had  been 
stated  in  full.  The  use  of  the  article  in  noipn  is  an 
independent  proof  that  the  ipsissinia  verba  of  Moses 
are  not  retained  here. 

If,  then,  all  the  objections  urged  against  the  unity 
of  these  feast-laws  prove  irrelevant,  we  may  proceed 
to  the  book  of  the  Covenant,  The  name  is  derived 
from  Exod.  xxiv.  7,  and  the  Mosaic  authorship  ex- 
pressly stated  in  xxiv.  4.  Whether  it  included  the 
Decalogue,  it  is  difficult  to  determine  ;  but  the  view 
that  the  passage  last  quoted  refers  to  the  Decalogue 
alone,  is  certainly  untenable.  All  critics  agree  that 
we  find  in  both  the  oldest  preserved  Code,  though 
not  even  this  in  its  original  form.  Kuenen  places  its 
'\  origin  in  the  reign  of  David,  *'if  not  earlier  :"  still,  he 
has  serious  objections  against  the  Mosaic  authorship. 
Reuss  assigns  it  to  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat ;  others, 
to  yet  other  dates.  Proofs  in  the  strictest  sense  of 
the  word  are  not  given.  We  simply  remark,  that 
whatever  arguments  are  urged  in  favor  of  the  rela- 
tive antiquity  of  this  Code,  are  entirely  derived  from 
its  peculiar  significance  and  unique  place  in  the  con- 
stitution of  Israel.  When  Kuenen  claims  that  the 
laws  of  Exod.  xx.-xxiii.  distinguish  themselves  by 
their  simplicity  and  originality,  this  is  exactly  what 
we  would  expect  of  a  Code  destined  to  be  the  funda- 
mental law  of  Israel,  and  to  present  in  a  few  general 
tommands  the  primary  relations  and  duties  devolving 


62  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

upon  the  Covenant-people.  To  speak  of  originality 
is  begging  the  question,  and  the  simplicity  is  fully 
accounted  for  by  the  historical  situation  in  which 
the  Pentateuch  places  it.  Indeed,  we  should  be  sur- 
prised if  these  commands  were  less  simple,  if  God 
had  at  the  outset  overwhelmed  the  Israelites  with 
a  mass  of  ceremonial  detail,  and  on  such  a  basis 
entered  with  them  into  a  solemn  covenant.  Jer. 
vii.  22  gives  the  right  point  of  view.  On  the  other 
hand,  how  natural  and  fitting  is  the  place  of  this 
Code  at  the  beginning  of  the  great  career  upon 
which  Israel  was  to  enter.  The  whole  is  an  appli- 
cation of  the  Decalogue  to  the  most  general  features 
of  national  life.  Consequently,  in  chap.  xxi.  i  we 
meet  the  word  D'ppp^p,  designating  ''  the  rights  by 
which  the  national  life  was  formed  into  a  civil 
commonwealth  and  the  political  order  secured."  In- 
timately connected  with  the  Decalogue,  they  start 
with  emphasizing  the  same  principle, — viz.,  the  unity 
and  spirituality  of  God,  —  and  cover  nearly  the  same 
ground.  Exception  has  been  taken  to  the  lack  of 
the  religious  element  ;  but  the  objection  leaves  out 
of  view  Exod.  xx.  22-26  and  xxiii.  14-19,  which  cer- 
tainly formed  a  part  of  the  book  of  the  Covenant. 

Next  come  the  directions  concerning  the  building 
of  the  sanctuary  (chap,  xxv.-xxx.).  After  the  people, 
by  their  adhesion  to  the  Covenant,  had  been  consti- 
tuted the  peculiar  property  of  God,  their  Theocratic 
King,  provisions  are  made  for  his  dwelling  amongst 
them.  The  relation  having  been  defined,  the  first 
step  is  taken  to  realize  it  in  the  accurate  description 
of  the  tabernacle,  which  would  be  its    symbol    and 


SYSTEM,    OR  DISORDER  ?  63 

pledge.  As  Keil  expresses  it,  ''  A  definite  external 
form  must  be  given  to  the  covenant  just  concluded, 
a  visible  bond  of  fellowship  constructed."  This  is 
explicitly  stated  in  chap.  xxv.  8,  with  a  clear  allusion 
to  xxiii.  20,  21.  The  critics,  otherwise  so  acute  in 
discovering  traces  of  affinity,  where  details  are  con- 
cerned seem  to  be  blind  for  this  most  intimate  re- 
lation, which  makes  one  passage  grow  out  of  the 
other  in  the  most  natural  way.  Their  dissecting 
methods  seem  to  have  disqualified  them  for  a  true 
appreciation  of  the  theocratic  idea,  which  germinates 
in  the  soil  of  God's  Covenant,  and  thence  develops 
itself  into  the  manifold  forms  of  a  system  in  which 
the  social  and  religious  life  interpenetrate. 

At  first  sight  the  section,  chap.  xxxi.  12-17,  niight 
appear  superfluous  and  out  of  place.  Keil  justifies 
its  occurrence  by  suggesting  that  the  Israelites 
might  have  thought  it  unnecessary  or  non-obligatory 
to  observe  the  Sabbath-commandment  during  the 
execution  of  so  great  a  work  in  honor  of  Jehovah. 
With  him  agree  Knobel  and  Graf.  There  is  nothing 
in  the  context,  however,  to  favor  this  view ;  and  it 
seems  better  to  explain  the  emphatic  repetition  of 
this  law  from  the  great  importance  of  the  Sabbath  as 
a  Covenant-sign  between  Israel  and  the  Lord.  In 
ver.  13  it  is  called  an  niK,  in  ver.  16  a  nna.  For  this 
reason  it  is  subjoined  to  that  other  visible  bond  of 
fellowship,  the  tabernacle.  As  in  the  latter,  God  by 
his  glorious  presence  signified  his  gracious  attitude 
towards  Israel,  so  Israel  by  the  observance  of  this 
day  of  rest  would  show  its  faithful  adherence  to  Jeho-  , 
vah's  Covenant. 


64  THE  PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

We  pass  on  to  chap,  xxxiv.  10-27.  As  we  have 
seen  already,  DiUmann  recognizes  in  these  verses  the 
Covenant-law  of  C  as  it  once  stood  after  xx.  20  and 
xxiv.  I,  2,  whilst  Wellhausen  postulates  a  new  source 
for  this  passage  alone.  The  fact  is,  that  we  have  here 
nothing  but. a  shorter  re-enactment  and  restatement 
of  the  Covenant-law,  that  had  been  broken  by  idola- 
try. As  the  first  solemn  conclusion  of  the  Covenant 
preceded  the  gift  of  the  first  tables,  so,  after  the  lat- 
ter had  been  broken,  the  former  must  be  renewed 
before  the  new  tables  of  the  Decalogue  can  be  handed 
to  Moses.  It  was  a  deep  insight  into  the  sinful 
nature  of  the  people  and  a  clear  apprehension  of  the 
corrupt  tendency  manifested  in  this  single  act  of 
idolatry,  that  led  to  emphasizing  specially  the  prohi- 
bition of  intercourse  with  the  Canaanites.  Also  the 
reference  to  the  golden  calf  in  ver.  17,  nDD"?  'riSx,  is 
obvious.  Both  points  of  contact  with  the  preceding 
chapters  are  disregarded  by  the  divisive  critics. 
It  is  more  difficult  to  see  why,  from  ver.  18  onward, 
the  feast-laws  are  restated  with  slight  differences  in 
form  from  Exod.  xxiii.  Partly  their  religious  and  the- 
ocratic importance  may  have  caused  their  appearance 
in  this  connection  :  partly  their  place  at  the  end  of  the 
Covenant-law  (chap,  xxiii.)  may  account  for  the  fact 
that  they,  and  not  other  laws,  are  repeated.  As  the 
first  covenant  began  with  the  Decalogue,  engraven 
in  stone,  and  closed  with  the  feast-laws,  so  after  the 
breakinsT,  thouc;h  there  be  no  formal  restatement  of 
every  particular,  still  we  find  the  beginning  and  end 
of  the  former  law  repeated,  to  indicate  that  this  new 
covenant  rests  ©n  essentially  the  same  basis  as  the 


SYSTEM,    OR   DISORDER?  65 

old.  The  repetition  is  not  pleonastic,  but  of  deep 
significance.  Decalogue  and  feast-laws  stand  as  rep- 
resentatives of  all  the  contents  of  the  Covenant-book. 

The  promulgation  of  the  Sabbath-commandment 
in  chap.  xxxv.  1-3  is  parallel  to  chap.  xxxi.  12-17. 
Moses  had  been  commissioned  to  remind  the  Israel- 
ites in  particular  of  this  Covenant-sign.  Having 
come  down,  according  to  chap,  xxxiv.  29,  he  imme- 
diately executes  this  commission  as  soon  as  the 
opportunity  offers  itself.  Here  also  there  are  regular 
progress  and  perfect  connection.  Chap,  xxxv.-xl.  cor- 
respond to  xxx.-xxxv.,  and  describe  the  execution  of 
what  was  commanded  there.  Of  the  peculiar  position 
which  chap.  xxx.  i-io  (of  the  altar  of  incense)  oc- 
cupies, we  must  speak  hereafter. 

The  Levitical  Code,  though  forming  a  unit  in  its 
own  compass,  is  nevertheless  but  a  single  link  in  the 
great  chain  :  as  we  hope  to  show,  it  takes  up  the 
development  of  the  Theocracy  where  Exodus  left  off, 
and  carries  it  onward. 

j  The^acxificialJa-ws  (chap,  i.-vii.)  form,  as  the  clos- 
fing  verses  show,  a  coherent  group.  Their  position  at 
this  juncture  is  not  only  natural,  but  necessary.  The 
sacrifices  in  their  whole  ritual  presuppose  the  com- 
pleted sanctuary,  the  erecting  of  which  was  recorded 
in  Exod.  xl.  Moreover,  it  is  stated  (Lev.  i.  i),  that 
the  Lord  called  unto  Moses,  and  spake  unto  him,  out 
of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  in  accordance 
with  his  promise  (Exod.  xxv.  22).  A  third  reason  for 
our  statement  that  this  Code  occupies  a  fitting  place 
in  the  history  of  revelation,  is  that  it  is  so  general  in 
its  character.     No  specification  being  made  concern- 


66  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

ing  the  time  for  presentation  of  sacrifices,  or  the  order 
in  which  they  were  to  succeed  each  other,  or  the 
number  of  the  animals  to  be  offered  at  the  various 
occasions,  all  which  was  to  be  regulated  afterwards, 
the  Code  confines  itself  to  what  was  its  evident  pur- 
pose ;  viz.,  the  laying  down  of  the  general  principles 
of  sacrificial  service  as  a  necessary  supplement  and 
completion  of  the  tabernacle-worship.  The  enumera- 
tion of  all  chief  topics  proves  beyond  doubt,  that  we 
possess  the  Code  in  its  original,  unaltered  condition. 
The  last  two  chapters  refer  to  the  priests,  and  give 
special  instructions  concerning  their  treatment  of 
sacrifices,  which  accounts  for  some  repetitions  of  j^re- 
vious  statements. 

Chap,  viii.-x.  describe  the  induction  of  Aaron  and 
his  sons  into  the  priestly  office.  The  fulfilment  of 
the  command  given  at  the  same  time  with  the  direc- 
tions for  the  building  of  the  tabernacle  could  not 
have  been  placed  earlier,  because  the  laws  of  sacri- 
fices had  a  bearing  upon  this  act.  It  could  not  have 
occurred  later,  because  the  completed  regulation  of 
the  tabernacle  ceremonial  required  an  officiating 
priesthood,  and  waited  but  for  their  investiture  to  go 
into  full  operation.  Thus  we  find  the  place  of  these 
three  chapters  again  naturally  and  necessarily  deter- 
mined by  what  precedes  and  follows.  Their  omission 
would  leave  a  gap,  and  their  insertion  at  any  other 
juncture  would  create  a  disturbance  in  the  systematic 
order  of  the  whole. 

In  chap,  xi.-xxv.  we  find  the  laws  concerning  un- 
cleanness,  purification,  and  holiness.  They  add  a 
new  feature  to  the  hitherto  imperfect  scheme  of  the 


SYSTEM,    OR   DISORDER?  6/ 

Theocracy.  We  saw  its  constitution  in  the  Covenant- 
law,  its  initial  realization  in  the  laws  of  the  sanctuary, 
the  sacrifices,  and  the  priesthood  :  here  our  attention 
is  called  to  the  fruits  of  purity  and  holiness  which 
this  organization  was  intended  to  produce,  both  in  a 
ceremonial  and  moral  aspect.  Holiness  was  the 
ever-recurring  condition  of  God's  dwelling  amongst 
them,  —  the  one  great  demand,  which  the  ritual  was 
both  to  symbolize  and  to  effect.  First  it  is  only  a 
ceremonial  and  outward  purity,  announcing  itself  in 
the  discrimination  between  clean  and  unclean  ani- 
mals, and  in  the  purification  of  the  body  (xi.-xv.)  ;  but 
this  in  its  turn  becomes  a  type  of  that  higher  spirit- 
ual and  moral  doing  away  of  sin,  whose  completion 
was  foreshadowed  in  the  Day  of  Atonement  (xvi.),  and 
directly  urged  on  the  people  by  the  moral  commands 
from  chap.  xvii.  onward.  It  is  important  to  notice 
how  at  this  very  juncture,  where  the  critics  claim  to 
have  discovered  the  attachment  of  an  earlier  Code 
("law  of  holiness")  to  a  later  one,  there  is  the  most 
intimate  coherence  and  connection  manifested  in  a 
gradual  advance  from  the  outward  to  the  inward ; 
from  the  ritual  to  the  moral  ;  from  what  is  demanded 
of  the  people,  to  what  is  imposed  on  the  priests,  to 
whom  the  call  for  holiness  came  with  double  force, 
and  in  a  more  special  sense  (xxi.)  ;  from  the  every- 
day life,  with  its  distinction  in  the  daily  food,  to  those 
holy  exercises  at  the  sanctuary,  which  were  to  be  the 
highest  and  most  adequate  expression  of  an  all-pervad- 
ing sanctity  and  entire  consecration  to  God  (xxiii.). 
How  the  theocratic  principle  has  shaped  these  laws, 
and  determined  their  sequence,  is  seen  in  the  fact,  that 


6S  THE  PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

holiness,  though  required  in  the  most  simple  acts  and 
forms  of  life,  is  ultimately  referred  to  as  finding  its 
full  realization  in  religious  observances,  in  sacrifices 
(xxii.),  and  holy  convocations  (xxiii.),  and  its  most 
significant  representation  in  the  burning  lamps  and 
show-bread  of  the  tabernacle  (xxiv.  1-9). 

The  unity  of  chap,  xxiii.  has  been  doubted  and 
denied  on  various  grounds.  Chiefly  the  frequent 
repetition  of  titles,  ver.  i,  9,  23,  26,  33,  has  led  to  the 
inference,  that  the  chapter  presents  a  compilation  of 
feast-laws,  notwithstanding  the  undeniable  fact  that 
they  are  all  ranged  under  one  general  principle,  — the 
holding  of  a  ^d-\;^  j<-)p?  {Jwly  convocation),  —  and  pre- 
sented in  the  strictest  chronological  order.  Dill- 
mann  thinks  that  ver.  9-22,  23-32,  33-43,  once 
formed  independent  regulations  concerning  the  re- 
spective feasts  of  which  they  treat.  George,  Hupfeld, 
and  recently  Wellhausen,  assumed  two  complete 
feast-Codes, — one  of  the  Elohist,  ver.  1-8,  23-38; 
and  one  of  another  hand,  ver.  9-22,  39-43,  interwoven 
by  the  redactor.  Both  assertions  are  equally  gratui- 
tous. The  two  Codes  as  separated  by  Wellhausen 
are  not  complete  ;  since  the  one  lacks  the  feast  of 
weeks,  the  other  Mazzoth.  And  against  both  views, 
that  of  Dillmann  as  well  as  Wellhausen's,  stand  the 
uniformity  of  treatment,  the  similarity  throughout  in 
expression,  and  the  retention  of  the  same  leading 
idea  in  all  the  parts.  The  appearance  of  a  second 
title  in  ver.  4  is  accounted  for  by  the  consideration, 
that  here  the  D"?>'p.  the  appointed  seasons  proper, 
begin  in  distinction  from  the  Sabbath.  And  how 
the  recurring  titles  can  awake   suspicion  in  critics 


SYS  TEA/,    OR   DISORDER  ?  69 

who  are  accustomed  to  comment  upon  the  redun- 
dancy of  the  Elohist,  we  do  not  understand.  By 
taking  ver.  37,  38,  not  as  the  close  of  the  whole  pre- 
ceding chapter,  but  only  of  ver.  4-36  (of  the  D^"!;:p 
proper),  the  difficulty  arising  from  the  words  ''  beside 
the  Sabbaths  "  is  relieved,  and  at  the  same  time  the 
reference  of  ver.  4  to  the  yearly  recurring  feasts 
strikingly  confirmed.  This  view  also  leaves  room  for 
the  supplementary  Succoth-law  (ver.  39-43) ;  since, 
according  to  it,  ver.  37,  38,  do  not  close  the  whole, 
but  only  a  subdivision,  of  the  topic.  The  final  close 
does  not  follow  until  ver.  44.  The  positive  explana- 
tion of  the  supplementary  character  of  ver.  39-43  is 
best  given  by  Bachmann  ;  viz.,  that  the  aspect  of  the 
observance  described  in  these  verses  stood  in  no 
direct  relation  to  the  t^ip  ^«")pP  and  the  sanctuary, 
and  therefore  could  be  better  added  subsequently 
than  connected  with  34-36,  since  the  latter  would 
have  destroyed  the  unity  of  the  chapter,  which  is  up 
to  that  point  governed  by  one  central  idea.  Nega- 
tively, the  view  which  holds  ver.  39-43  to  be  an  ad- 
dition of  the  redactor  from  a  different  source  is 
untenable,  as  Dillmann  remarks,  against  Wellhausen 
and  Kayser.  For  {a)  The  Elohist  must  have  given 
fuller  directions  concerning  Succoth,  which  he  had 
not  as  yet  treated  in  detail,  than  those  contained  in 
ver.  34-36.  (b)  Ver.  39-43  is  incomplete :  it  does  not 
even  contain  the  name  of  the  feast  referred  to,  and 
requires  what  precedes  for  its  explanation,  (r)  The 
language  is  Elohistic.  We  may  finally  remark,  that 
in  chap,  xxiii.  special  attention  is  paid  to  the  feasts 
not  exhaustively  treated  before  (Pentecost,  Succoth). 


70  THE   PEXTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

whilst  others,  for  which  full  provision  had  been  pre- 
viously made  already,  are  here  more  summarily  dis- 
missed (Passover,  Day  of  Atonement). 

The  promulgation  of  the  laws  concerning  murder, 
damage,  and  blasphemy  (xxiv.  10-23)  was  occasioned 
by  the  blasphemy  of  Shelomith's  son. 

The  heading  of  chap.  xxv.  indicates  that  its  con- 
tents close  the  main  body  of  Sinaitic  legislation, 
which  accordingly  ends  with  the  regulations  for  the 
Sabbath-year  and  the  year  of  jubilee.  This  position 
is  entirely  appropriate.  By  these  institutions  the  ex- 
istence and  continuance  of  the  theocratic  community 
was  insured,  by  securing  a  permanent  validity  to  its 
agrarian  basis,  which  depended,  of  course,  on  the 
equal  division  of  property  among  all  its  members. 

Chap.  xxvi.  formally  closes  the  Leviticai  Code  with 
a  prophetic  appeal  to  the  people,  urging  upon  them 
faithful  observance  of  God's  law,  and  threatening  a 
curse  against  all  disobedience,  showing,  in  a  warning 
disclosure  of  future  apostasy,  to  what  dangers  the 
people  would  be  exposed  when  once  in  possession  of 
the  promised  land.  There  is  a  manifest  similarity  in 
the  closing  sections  of  the  Covenant-law,  the  Leviti- 
cai Code,  and  the  Deuteronomic  legislation,  which  be- 
trays their  essential  unity.  The  Covenant-law  made 
last  of  all  provision  for  the  feasts :  so  does  Leviticus. 
And  as  the  former  was  sanctioned  by  special  prom- 
ises in  accordance  with  its  special  scope  and  charac- 
ter (Exod.  xxiii.  20-33),  so  the  more  voluminous  law 
of  Leviticus  has  its  more  comprehensive  statement 
of  the  blessing  and  curse  at  its  close.  Such  under- 
lying harmonious  unity  far  outweighs  the  numerous 


SYSTEM,    OR  DISORDER  ?  7 1 

external   contradictions   which   the    critics   claim    to 
have  discovered  in  detail.     Unity  lies  at  the  bottom  : , 
the  discord  is  superficial  and  imaginary.  / 

Chap,  xxvii.  treats  of  vows.  Probably  the  non-ob- 
ligatory character  of  this  religious  service  caused  its 
treatment  outside  of  the  main  body  of  laws. 

During  the  promulgation  of  the  Levitical  Code,  the 
history  of  the  Covenant-people  had  offered  nothing 
remarkable,  which  could  have  been  the  occasion  of 
the  enactment  of  a  new  law.  With  a  few  exceptions 
in  chap,  viii.,  ix.,  x.,  Leviticus  contains  no  narrative. 

In  Numbers  the  historical  principle  becomes  again 
predominant,  as  it  was  in  Exodus.  There  is  this  dif- 
ference, however,  —  that  in  Exodus  the  majority  of  the 
laws  were  so  important  that  they  influenced  history, 
and  drew  it  into  their  own  appointed  course,  so  that 
it  became  subordinate  to  legislation.  In  Numbers, 
on  the  contrary,  much  refers  to  the  temporary  cir- 
cumstances of  the  desert  journey,  and  therefore  ap- 
pears as  the  historical  occasions  offered  themselves. 
Accordingly,  the  systematic  arrangement  has  more 
and  more  to  give  place  to  an  external  attachment 
of  legal  fragments  to  the  facts  of  history. 

Still,  even  where  the  outward  unity  and  connec- 
tion are  wanting,  there  is  a  ruling  idea,  which,  as  it 
has  determined  the  history  of  this  period,  also  has 
given  a  common  character  to  its  laws.  They  all 
relate  in  some  way  to  the  civil  and  political  consti- 
tution of  Israel,  to  the  external  and  internal  organi- 
zation of  the  tribes  as  the  army  and  the  congregation 
of  Jehovah,  either  as  this  was  determined  for  the  pres- 
ent by  the  journey  towards  Canaan  (chap.   i.-x.  10), 


72  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

or  required  for  the  future  by  possession  of  the  Holy 
Land  (xxii.-xxxvi.).  The  former  of  these  sections  is 
chiefly  legal,  the  latter  of  a  mixed  character  :  all  that 
falls  between  them  gives  the  history  of  the  journey 
from  Sinai  to  the  Jordan,  interrupted  by  legal  sec- 
tions in  chap,  xv.,  xvii.,  xviii.,  xix. 

Bertheau,  up  to  this  point  having  been  able  to 
trace  a  combination  of  the  significant  numbers  7  and 
10  in  various  groups  and  series  and  decalogues,  is 
now  obliged  to  confess,  that  only  a  certain  arrange- 
ment on  the  principle  of  decades  can  be  discovered 
here. 

The  remarks  made  above  concerning  the  chrono- 
logical position  of  the  laws  which  occur  here,  show 
that  a  positive  vindication  of  their  systematic  unity 
would  be  in  vain.  We  may  content  ourselves  with 
answering  a  few  objections  raised  against  the  good 
order  of  these  legal  passages. 

Bertheau  considers  Num.  iii.  1-4  as  an  insertion, 
lacking  all  connection  both  w^ith  what  precedes  and 
with  what  follows,  loosely  suspended  between  ii. 
and  iii. 

The  reason,  however,  why  the  generations  of  Aaron 
should  be  given  at  this  juncture,  is  obvious;  viz.,  to 
distinguish  the  priests  at  the  outset  from  the  Levites. 
Had  the  service  of  the  latter  been  described  without 
this  distinction  being  made,  it  would  have  appeared 
as  if  they  stood  on  a  par  with  the  priests.  Ver.  6 
states  emphatically  that  the  Levites  were  to  minis- 
ter unto  Aaron  tJic  priest. 

The  first  part  of  chap,  ix  has  suggested  to  many 
a  twofold  difficulty,      {^i)  It  seems  unnecessary  that 


SYSTEM,    OR   DISORDER?  73 

the  Passover-law  should  have  been  repeated  here 
without  any  additional  or  supplementary  directions 
(ver.  1-5).  {b)  The  date  mentioned  in  ver.  i  carries 
us  back  before  the  date  given  in  chap.  i.  i. 

Both  difficulties  are  best  removed  by  considering 
ver.  1-5  as  an  introduction  to  the  law  of  the  second 
Passover,  from  ver.  6  onward.  This  instruction  was, 
according  to  the  context,  revealed  by  God  to  Moses 
in  the  first  month  ;  i.e.,  at  the  regular  Passover-time. 
But  the  supplementary  provision  for  defiled  persons 
w^as  not  made  until  some  time  after  the  regular  ob- 
servance,— -according  to  i.  i,  at  least  fourteen  days 
later.  Thus  the  chapter  fits  well  in  the  chronology 
of  the  book,  and  ver.  i  repeats  a  command  given  a 
few  weeks  before  to  introduce  the  new  provision 
stated  in  ver.  6,  seqq. 

Dr.  Kuenen  objects  to  chap,  xv.,  that  it  is  evidently 
an  interpolation.  His  reasons  are,  that  it  is  not  con- 
nected with  what  precedes  and  follows,  and  that  ver. 
2,  as  it  stands  now,  comes  in  very  inappropriately,  and 
sounds  almost  like  sarcastic  irony  in  the  mouth  of 
God,  after  the  events  narrated  in  the  two  preceding 
chapters.  The  fact  is,  that  these  laws  were  given 
during  the  thirty-nine  years'  wandering  in  the  desert. 
As  there  is  a  break  in  the  history  here,  neither  the 
exact  chronological  position,  nor  the  historical  occa- 
sion of  the  announcement  of  them,  can  be  determined. 
The  irony  would  certainly  disappear,  if,  between  the 
judgment  of  chap.  xiv.  and  the  directions  of  chap. 
XV,,  some  months,  or  even  years,  had  intervened.  In- 
stead of  sarcasm  and  irony,  it  would  seem  that  there 
fell  a  ray  of  hope  and  divine  consolation  on  the  back- 


74  THE   PENTATEUCH  A  L    CODES  MOSAIC. 

ground  of  these  verses,  in  so  far  as  the  possession  of 
Canaan  is  alluded  to.  Probably  this  was  done  to 
remind  the  rising  generation  that  to  them  God  would 
keep  his  promise,  and  bestow  upon  them  these  bene- 
fits which  their  fathers  had  forfeited  by  their  rebel- 
lion and  unbelief. 

This  part,  also,  of  our  task  is  now  accomplished. 
Having  shown  that  all  the  laws  in  Exodus-Numbers, 
so  far  as  language  and  context  are  concerned,  form 
one  systematic,  progressive,  well-connected  whole, 
we  possess  a  vantage-ground  on  which  to  meet  the 
critics  in  their  next  attack  upon  the  unity  of  the  pre- 
Deuteronomic  Codes. 


CONTRADICTIONS  AND   REPETITIONS.  75 


CHAPTER    VI. 

CONTRADICTIONS  AND   REPETITIONS. 

IT  is  claimed  that  the  Pentateuchal  Codes,  even 
when  Deuteronomy  is  left  out  of  view,  confront 
us  with  cases  of  flat  and  irreconcilable  contradiction. 
Of  course,  if  this  be  true,  it  precludes  most  positively 
all  unity  of  authorship.  Two  contradictory  laws  can- 
not have  been  in  operation  at  the  same  time  :  the 
one  must  have  been  antiquated  when  the  other  went 
into  effect.  And  least  of  all  is  it  thinkable,  the 
critics  say,  that  the  same  legislator  should  have  pre- 
scribed two  contradictory  laws,  and  thus  destroyed 
his  own  work  and  authority. 

I.  It  must  be  admitted,  if  a  number  of  contradic- 
tory laws,  exclusive  of  each  other,  can  be  pointed  out, 
without  any  reason  to  account  for  their  difference  in 
the  altered  circumstances,  or  any  explicit  statement 
that  the  one  has  been  substituted  for  the  other,  that 
in  this  case  we  shall  be  shut  up  to  the  denial  of  the 
unity,  and  consequently  the  Mosaic  authorship,  of 
the  Code.  On  the  other  hand,  nothing  less  than  this 
can  accomplish  the  result,  which  the  critics  wish  to 
produce,  of  putting  Moses  at  variance  with  himself. 
A  second  condition  to  which  this  argument  is  tied, 
should  be  that  a  considerable  number  of  discrepancies 


']6  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

I    be  adduced.     To  argue  from  a  few  isolated  cases,  and 

I   to  leave  the  perfect  agreement  on  the  whole  out  of 

\  sight,  is  to  substitute  the  letter  for  the  spirit,   and 

T  0  awaken^  a  strong  suspicion  against  the  critics,  that 

they  are  intent  upon  making  out  a  case  ;  that  it  is 

not  the  contradictions  which  compel  them  to  deny 

the  unity,  but  that  tJicy  strain  and  press  the  former 

unduly  to  summon  them  as  witnesses  against  it.     It 

requires  a  very  strong  combination  of  individual  facts 

to  overthrow  the  presumptiv^e  evidence   in  favor  of 

unity,  which  we  have  discovered  in  the  remarkable 

similarity  and  agreement  of  all  the  Codes. 

2.  Abstractly,  all  admit  the  possibility  that  two 
laws  might  apparently  contradict  each  other,  whilst 
the  difference  might  simply  arise  from  the  peculiar 
aim  of  each.  In  modern  law,  instances  of  such  a 
character  are  numerous ;  but,  whilst  they  are  ab- 
stractly obliged  to  make  this  concession,  the  critics 
never  endeavor  to  harmonize  in  concrete  cases.     This 

IjClearly  proves  that  the  question  at  issue  is  begged 
[from  the  outset :  it  is  a  settled  affair  with  the  critics 
ithat    the    Codes  are   distinct.     Thus    prejudice    and 
||bias  deal  with  the  law  in  an  unlawful  way,  and  de- 
mrive  it  of  its  inherent  right  to  speak  for  itself.     The 
lawgiver  is  stopped  in  the  midst  of  his  instructions  ; 
and   the  dislocated  and  detached  sentences  of  laws 
thus  rendered  incomplete,  are  triumphantly  held  up 
as  contradictins:  each  other.     All  such  methods  must 
be  met  with  a  bold  protest ;  and  no  reasoning  which 
in  its  premises  anticipates  an  element  of  the  conclu- 
sion to  be  reached,  can  be  considered  as  valid. 

3.  Dr.  Kuenen  distinguishes  two  sorts  of  contra- 


CONTRADICTIONS  AND   REPETITIONS.  7/ 

dictions  :  i.  The  discrepancy,  though  it  actually  ex- 
ists, is  of  such  a  character  that  exegetical  ingenuity, 
combined  with  the  arts  of  jurisprudence,  can  solve 
the  harmonistic  problem.  2.  The  one  law  positively 
excludes  the  other.  We  must  protest  against  this 
^/;7'^;7  decision  of  how  much  jurisprudence  may  be 
admitted  in  the  exposition  of  law.  If  historical  in- 
terpretation may  be  guided  by  historical  canons, 
why  not  facilitate  the  explanation  of  law  by  all  legal 
means  }  That  the  solution  of  a  complicated  legal 
problem  can  be  reached  only  with  the  help  of  fine 
distinctions,  gives  Dr.  Kuenen  no  right  to  affirm  that 
the  discrepancies  actually  existed  in  the  mind  of  the 
lawgiver. 

4.  If  it  be  admitted  that  law  may  and  must  be 
interpreted  and  harmonized  on  legal  principles,  we 
find  that  there  are  in  general  two  ways  in  which, 
apparent  contradictions  can  be  removed ;  and  it  is 
but  fair  to  try  either  of  them  before  an  absolute 
disagreement  is  alleged. 

{a)  Systematically  we  harmonize  two  statements 
by  assigning  to  each  its  proper  domain,  considering 
them  from  the  peculiar  point  of  view  which  the  law- 
giver had  in  mind  when  he  prescribed  them,  by 
making  the  one  supplement  the  other. 

\li)  Historically  the  chronologically  later  passage 
must  be  given  the  preference  over  the  one  enacted 
earlier.  There  is  nothing  unreasonable  in  the  as- 
sumption that  provisional  directions  were  subse- 
quently modified,  especially  when  at  first  only  stated 
in  outline  rather  for  theoretical  than  practical  pur- 
poses.    This  right  of  historical  harmonization  must 


y8  THE  PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

be  insisted  on  the  more  firmly,  since  the  Pentateuch 
presents  codified  law  in  the  framework  of  history, 
from  a  historical  point  of  view.  In  many  cases,  the 
earlier  enactment  was  not  given  for  a  legal,  but 
simply  for  a  historical,  purpose,  or  only  intended  to 
suit  a  transient  state  of  affairs.  When  the  latter 
ceased,  it  became  self-evident  that  the  provisional 
law  had  lost  its  binding  force.  This  principle  is  of 
wide  application  in  comparing  Deuteronomy  with 
the  Levitical  Code. 

To  both  methods  as  presented  by  Delitzsch  (Genes. 
Einl,  43,  44),  Dr.  Kuenen  again  takes  exception. 
Delitzsch  had  referred  to  the  corpus  juris  Jnstinia- 
neuin  as  a  parallel,  and  shown  by  a  quotation  from 
Savigny,  how  jurists  resort  to  the  same  princi- 
ple, when  the  Digesta,  Institutiones,  and  the  Codex 
occasionally  contradict  each  other  or  themselves. 
Kuenen  remarks,  "  I  do  not  believe  that  the  Mosaic 
origin  of  the  Pentateuchal  Codes  is  made  more  prob- 
able by  this  analogy.  Does  not  the  discrepancy  be- 
tween the  various  parts  of  the  corpus  juris  arise 
from  the  origin  of  its  laws  in  various  periods.?  If, 
therefore,  the  case  be  the  same  with  the  Pentateuch, 
the  successive  origin  of  the  Mosaic  Codes  becomes 
highly  probable."  This  retort  of  his  own  argument 
upon  Delitzsch  would  be  justified  if  we  had  the  same 
historical  testimony  for  the  gradual  origination  of 
the  Mosaic  institutions  as  there  is  for  the  develop- 
ment of  Roman  law.  The  opposite  of  this  is  true. 
And  Dr.  Kuenen  overlooks,  that  the  point  of  analogy 
consists  simply  in  the  fact  that  a  Code  may  be  in 
operation  of  which  the  individual  laws  seem  to  con- 


CONTRADICTIONS  AND  REPETITIONS.  79 

traciict  each  other.  What  may  be  the  cause  of  this 
discrepancy  is  not  the  question  here  :  it  is  enough 
that  the  fact  be  verified.  If  the  corpus  juris  was 
valid  law  at  a  certain  time,  why  not  the  Mosaic  law 
also }  And  if  it  be  proven  that  the  variations  in  the 
former  are  due  to  diversity  of  origin,  we  will  wait  till 
the  same  evidence  is  presented  for  the  Mosaic  laws. 
The  contradictions  in  themselves  do  not  prove  any 
thing  as  long  as  — 

{a)  They  can  be  harmonized. 

ip)  The  difference  explained  on  other  grounds. 

if)  The  positive  proof  that  they  owe  their  origin 
to  diversity  of  authorship  is  not  given. 

We  cannot  enter  here  upon  the  discussion  of  i 
dividual  cases,  most  of  which  will,  moreover,  come  up 
at  later  points  of  our  inquiry.  And  it  can  be  con- 
fidently claimed  that  all  of  them  have  met  with  a 
satisfactory  solution  long  ago. 

With  regard  to  repetitions,  a  few  remarks  may 
suffice : — 

1.  The  objection  based  on  the  frequent  restatement 
of  essentially  the  same  law,  disregards  the  peculiar 
relation  in  which  the  living  God  stood  to  his  Cov- 
enant-people Israel.  He  was  the  great  Law-giver 
and  Theocratic  King,  but  at  the  same  time  the 
father  of  his  subjects  ;  and  where  he  had  to  command 
in  the  former  capacity,  he  could  urge  and  beseech 
repeatedly  in  the  latter. 

2.  The  Pentateuch,  as  a  whole,  is  not  a  legal  Code,  '\ 
but  a  history  of  the  foundation   of  the   Theocracy.  ^ 
What  may  be  less  appropriate  in  an   official   Code, 
becomes  quite  natural  in  its  historical  environment. 


8o  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

3.  The  character  of  the  repeated  laws  affords  an 
easy  explanation  of  this  fact.  Most  of  them  are  of 
the  highest  importance  for  Israel's  religious  life.  As 
an  example,  we  may  refer  to  the  Sabbatical  laws. 
Not  less  than  eleven  substantially  the  same  are 
found  in  Exodus-Numbers. 

4.  Very  few  actual  repetitions  exist  where  the  sub- 
ject is  not  approached  in  every  new  treatment  from 
a  different  side,  or  with  the  purpose  to  introduce 
some  modification. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  LAW. 


CHAPTER    VII. 

DEVELOPMENT  OF   LAW. 

BY  far  the  most  formidable  objection  raised  by 
modern  critics  against  the  miity  of  the  Penta- 
teuchal  Codes,  rests  on  the  assertion  that  they 
betray  by  their  contents  and  form  a  natural  growth 
from  the  simple  to  the  complex,  and  that  their  vari- 
ous parts  represent  each  a  different  stage  of  religious 
development,  and  fit  exactly  into  the  historical  periods 
to  which  their  origin  is  respectively  ascribed.  This 
evolutionary  theory,  of  course,  has  led  to  the  recon- 
struction of  the  whole  Jewish  history.  If  the  essence 
of  the  Christian  conception  of  revelation  consist  in 
a  direct  interference  of  God,  the  creation  of  a  new 
order  of  things,  the  implanting  by  an  act  of  grace  of 
what  nature  had  become  unable  to  produce;  if  the 
perfect  and  absolute  stand  here  at  the  beginning,  and 
are  the  source,  not  the  fruit,  of  all  development,  — 
then  it  will  surely  follow  that  a  naturalistic  philoso- 
phy must  end  with  the  beginning,  and  begin  with  the 
end.  The  difference  must  needs  be  radical.  Who- 
soever, like  Dr.  Kuenen,  rules  out  the  supernatural 
element  from  Israel's  history  cannot  occupy  a  half- 
way position :  he  will  place  the  contents  of  revela- 
tion at  the  end,  because,  at  every  other  .point,  their 
interpolation  would  disturb  the  order  of  development. 


82  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

The  law  according  to  Wellhausen  is  an  accommo- 
dation to  the  natural  tendencies  of  the  people.  Origi- 
nally the  ceremonial  cultus  was  rooted  in  the  soil  of 
heathen  nature-worship,  and  in  its  primitive  form  it 
was  the  spontaneous  expression  of  a  natural  religious 
impulse.  To  the  first  part  of  his  Prolegomena,  treat- 
ing the  history  of  the  cultus,  he  has  prefixed  the 
motto.  Legem  non  Jiabentes  natura  faciiuit  legis  opera. 
What  distinguished  Israel  from  the  Gentiles  was  not 
its  ceremonial  institutions,  —  rather  the  opposite;  for 
"the  cultus  is  the  heathen  element  in  the  Jewish  re- 
ligion." Only  after  the  codification  and  systematiz- 
ing of  these  primitive  elements  during  and  after  the 
exile,  did  the  law  become  the  exponent  of  the  people's 
peculiar  character.  First,  prophecy  had  raised  its 
powerful  voice  in  opposition  to  all  outward  rites,  as 
being  rooted  in,  closely  allied  to,  and  in  necessary 
connection  with,  the  worship  of  other  gods.  Pure 
Jahveism  in  a  spiritual  sense  was  the  ideal  which  the 
prophets  continually  held  up  before  the  people,  with- 
out being  able  to  realize  it  amongst  them.  How  we 
shall  account  for  the  sudden  appearance  of  a  class  of 
men  with  such  spiritual  ideas  and  lofty  aspirations, 
among  a  people  scarcely  awakened  out  of  the  mystic 
sleep  of  Oriental  nature-worship,  to  the  first  faint 
consciousness  of  something  more  definite  and  per- 
sonal, we  ask  in  vain.  The  fact  is  surely  not  less 
miraculous  and  astounding  than  the  promulgation  of 
a  divine  law  on  Sinai.  But  the  prophetical  voice  so 
powerfully  raised  at  first,  became  weaker  and  weaker, 
and  at  last  was  silenced  entirely.  Spiritualism  had 
taken  up  arms  against  ritualism,  and  lost  the  battle. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  LAW.  83 

Seeing  that  it  could  not  successfully  resist  this  natu- 
ral tendency  of  Israel,  it  began  to  accommodate  its 
demands  to  the  desires  of  the  people,  and  tried  to 
assimilate  the  essentially  heathen  elements  to  its  own 
Jahvistic  ideas  ;  and  by  this  strange  but  dexterous 
renouncement  of  former  principles,  the  strongest 
obstacle  in  the  way  of  Jahvistic  monotheism  was  all 
at  once  transformed  into  its  most  powerful  incentive 
and  reliable  safeguard.  What  happened,  according 
to  Wellhausen,  finds  an  illustration  in  the  methods 
followed  by  the  Christian  Church,  in  adopting  hea- 
then practices  and  customs,  and  making  them  the 
symbols  of  Christian  facts  and  ideas. 

It  is  true  this  scheme  presents  a  difficulty  which 
has  not  entirely  escaped  the  critics  themselves. 
Wellhausen  confesses  that  the  Levitical  Theocracy 
indicates  a  retrogressive  movement  in  the  religious 
growth  of  Israel.  He  characterizes  the  introduction 
of  the  Pentateuchal  Codes  as  a  systematic  relapse 
into  that  heathenism  which  the  prophets  had  con- 
demned and  opposed  with  all  their  might.  There  is 
a  break  in  the  process  here.  Prophetism  had  pro- 
claimed spiritual  Jahveism,  and  condemned  ritualism  : 
instead  of  adhering  to  this  vital  principle  (its  only 
raison  d'etre),  and  exalting  the  idea  above  the  form, 
which  was  the  true  import  of  its  mission,  it  now  for- 
sakes the  essential  and  spiritual  aim  of  all  its  striv- 
ing, satisfied  if  merely  the  form  be  saved,  if  only  a 
sort  of  Jahveism,  be  it  ever  so  gross  and  supersti- 
tious and  ceremonial,  be  preserved. 

Not  all  critics  agree  as  to  the  precise  order  in 
which   the    several   portions    of   the   various    Codes 


84  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

ori2:inated.  As  to  the  Codes  themselves,  the  most 
favorite  succession  is  that  proposed  by  the  recon- 
structionists  of  Wellhausen's  type,  being  Covenant- 
law,  Deuteronomy,  Ezekiel's  Programme,  Priest 
Code.  Graf  distributes  the  legal  contents  of  the 
Pentateuch  in  the  following  way  :  — 

1.  The  Jehovistic  recension  of  the  Elohistic  narra- 
tive (which  he  assigns  to  the  time  of  King  Ahaz) 
contained  Exod.  xiii.,  xx.-xxiii.,  xxxiv, 

2.  The  law-book  discovered  in  the  eighteenth  year 
of  King  Josiah,  and  written  during  his  reign,  con- 
tained Deut,  iv.  45-xxviii.  69.  Of  this,  however, 
chap,  xxi.-xxv.  belong  to  an  earlier  time,  and  formed 
originally  a  supplement  to  the  laws  of  Exodus. 
Graf  is  inclined  to  identify  the  Deuteronomist  with 
Jeremiah. 

3.  Ezekiel  is  the  author  of  Lev.  xviii.-xxvi.,  and 
of  the  Sabbath-law  in  Exod.  xxxi. 

4.  In  the  time  of  Ezra,  and  probably  by  Ezra  him- 
self, were  written  Exod.  xii.  1-28,  43-51,  xxv.-xxxi. 
and  xxxv.-xl.  ;  Lev.  i.-xvi.  (only  chap.  xi.  contains 
an  older  law),  xxiv.  10-23  ;  Num.  i.  48-x.  28,  xv.-xix., 
xxviii.-xxxi.,  xxxv,  i6-xxxvi.  13. 

5.  Soon  after  the  time  of  Ezra  the  whole  was  com- 
pleted by  the  addition  of  Lev.  xxvii.  and  some  minor 
parts. 

Since  the  latest  schemes  place  Deuteronomy  be- 
tween the  Covenant-book  and  the  Levitical  laws,  we 
must  anticipate  some  parts  of  our  discussion.  The 
historical  side  of  the  problem  will  also  come  here, 
already  more  or  less  under  consideration. 


UNITY,    OR   PLURALITY,    OF  SANCTUARY?        85 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

UNITY,  OR  PLURALITY,   OF  SANCTUARY? 

IT  is  alleged,  that  before  the  Deiiteronomic  reform 
and  the  centralization  which  it  effected,  sacrifices 
were  offered,  even  by  the  most  pious  Israelites,  at  all 
places  throughout  the  land,  specially  on  the  Bamoth,  or 
high  places,  to  which  a  peculiar  sanctity  was  ascribed. 
The  Covenant-law  is  claimed  to  testify  to  this  state  of 
affairs  ;  and  the  classical  passage,  Exod.  xx.  24-26,  is 
generally  quoted  as  decisive  for  the  view,  that,  long 
after  the  conquest  of  the  land,  a  plurality  of  sanctu- 
aries was  not  only  tolerated,  but  legalized. 

All  will,  of  course,  depend  on  the  exegesis  of  this 
passage  ;  and  the  latter  will  be  determined  by  the 
context.  As  we  have  hitherto  discovered  no  evi- 
dence of  the  composite  character  of  the  Codes,  we 
vindicate  our  right  to  interpret  these  verses  in  the 
light  of  what  precedes  and  follows.  Thus  viewing 
them,  we  would  state  their  bearing  on  the  present 
question  under  the  following  heads  :  — 

I.  They  contain  simply  some  provisional  direc- 
tions :  — 

{a)  For  the  altar  to  be  erected  for  the  Covenant- 
sacrifice  (Exod.  xxiv.). 

ip)  For  all  sacrifices  to  be  offered  before  the  taber- 
nacle was  ready  (compare  also  Josh.  viii.  31). 


86  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

The  only  objections  that  can,  be  reasonably  urged 
against  this  natural  explanation  are  the  following 
two :  — 

(i)  The  time  between  the  promulgation  of  this 
command  and  the  erection  of  the  tabernacle  was 
too  short  to  require  a  special  provision. 

According  to  Exod.  xl.  i,  the  tabernacle  was  not 
reared  before  the  first  day  of  the  first  month  of  the 
second  year  after  the  exodus.  And  even  then  the 
tabernacle-service  could  not  go  into  effect,  because 
the  sacrificial  laws  had  not  yet  been  given.  Not 
before  Lev.  viii.  do  we  find  the  command  to  consecrate 
Aaron  and  his  sons  (compare  also  Num.  i.  i).  Thus 
the  time  between  the  publication  of  this  command 
and  the  inauguration  of  the  tabernacle-service  was  at 
least  eight  full  months.  Were  the  children  of  Israel 
without  sacrifices  all  this  time  1  If  not,  and  if  each 
was  his  own  priest,  and  built  his  own  altar,  what  was 
more  natural  than  a  provision  of  this  character.'* 
Afterwards,  of  course,  it  was  partially  abrogated  by 
the  fuller  and  permanent  arrangement  of  the  ritual 
system. 

(2)  The  directions  that  the  altar  should  be  of  un- 
hewn stone,  and  that  it  should  not  be  ascended  by 
steps,  are  claimed  to  be  of  general  character,  and 
thus  to  preclude  the  subsequent  promulgation  of  the 
Levitical  law,  which  contradicts  them. 

As  to  the  first  of  these  points,  we  claim  on  our 
side  that  the  command  is  not  general,  but  special 
and  temporary.  Because  the  altar  which  each  man 
w^ould  build  for  himself  could  not  be  consecrated,  it 
should  consist  of  simple,  undefiled,  natural  material. 


UNITY,    OR  PLURALITY,    OF  SANCTUARY?        8/ 

Of  course,  to  the  altar  of  the  tabernacle,  made  ac- 
:ording  to  God's  own  prescriptions,  solemnly  conse- 
crated and  served  by  an  official  priesthood,  these 
restrictions  did  not  apply. 

The  prohibition  to  ascend  the  altar  by  sjteps,  had 
in  it  an  element  of  permanent  validity,  as  ver.  26 
intimates.  Only  the  special  way  in  which  this  neces- 
sity was  met,  had  no  perpetual  binding  force.  Hence, 
whilst  the  Levitical  law  preserved  the  former,  it  could 
disregard  the  latter.  The  principle  was  maintained, 
but  in  the  manner  stated  in  Exod.  xxviii.  42,  xxxix.  28. 

2.  The  critics  cannot  satisfactorily  account  for  the 
addition,  ''where  I  record  my  name."  Wellhausen 
dismisses  the  significant  phrase  with  the  following 
insignificant  remark  :  "  This  only  means  that  the 
place  of  communion  between  heaven  and  earth  is 
not  to  be  regarded  as  arbitrarily  choseUj  but  as  in 
some  way  designated  by  God  himself."  The  refer- 
ence of  this  clause  to  the  successive  stations  of  the 
tabernacle  during  the  desert-journey,  is  not  excluded, 
but  does  not  do  full  justice  to  the  meaning.  It  is  in- 
tended that  all  places  become  sacred  by  a  manifesta- 
tion of  God,  whether  it  be  in  a  theophany,  or  by  the 
Shechinah,  or  in  some  other  way.  On  Sinai,  God  re- 
corded his  name  in  a  glorious  revelation  ;  and  thus  to 
the  Israelites  the  provisional  right  could  be  given 
to  build  an  altar  there.  Afterwards,  v/hen  the  mani- 
festation of  God's  glory  was  transferred  to  the  tent  of 
the  testimony,  this  of  necessity  became  the  only 
recognized  sanctuary.  The  passage  clearly  intimates, 
that,  as  often  as  altered  circumstances  would  in  the 
future   render   centralization    of  worship   practically 


8S  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

impossible,  the  same  freedom  would  be  restored, 
always,  of  course,  with  the  same  restriction,  that  no 
place  of  sacrifice  should  be  arbitrarily  chosen,  but 
only  such  as  were  sanctified  by  "a  recording  of  God's 
name."  Actually,  we  find  in  subsequent  history  that 
all  such  consecrated  spots  had  been  the  scene  of  a 
theophany:  they  were  so  many  "  Sinais,"  where  the 
same  command  could  be  repeated,  and  the  pious 
Israelite  once  more  erect  his  simple  altar  of  earth  or 
unhev/n  stone,  and  sacrifice  his  burnt-offering-  and 
peace-offering,  his  sheep  and  oxen. 

That  the  Covenant-law  positively  presupposes  unity 
of  worship  and  cultus,  is  seen  from  the  feast-laws, 
Exod.  xxiii.  17,  19,  where  every  male  is  required  to 
appear  three  times  in  the  year  before  the  Lord  God. 
If  the  sanctuaries  were  so  numerous  as  the  critics 
assert,  and  accordingly  visited  continually  and  fre- 
quently by  all  Israelites,  a  command  like  this,  to 
appear  three  times  before  the  Lord,  would  have  been 
superfluous  and  unmeaning. 

We  see  that  the  attempt  to  bring  the  Covenant- 
law  into  contradiction  with  the  subsequent  Codes, 
or  to  show  that  it  sanctions  a  more  primitive  form  of 
sanctuary-worship,  rests  on  a  very  forced  interpreta- 
tion of  a  single  passage  severed  from  its  context. 
That  there  was  a  relative  element  in  this  regulation, 
is  absurd  to  deny ;  and  the  absolute  principles  involved 
were  retained,  though  in  a  somewhat  modified  form, 
in  the  Levitical  law,  so  that  no  discrepancy  exists. 
Surely  no  development  of  centuries  was  required  to 
effect  the  unessential  difference  between  these  verses 
and  the  description  of  the  altar  in    the    tabernacle, 


UNITY,    OR  PLURALITY,    OF  SANCTUARY?       89 

modifications  which  are  fully  accounted  for  by  the 
historical  situation  that  conditioned  both. 

It  is  further  alleged  that  this  first  Code  makes  no 
provision  for  the  priests  and  their  support,  and  thus 
silently  assumes  the  common  right  of  all  Israelites  to 
offer  sacrifice.  We  deny  that  the  latter  proposition 
can  be  logically  deduced  from  the  former ;  and  as  to 
the  silence  of  the  Code,  if  the  argument  proves  any 
thing,  it  proves  that  there  was  no  privileged  priest- 
hood as  late  as  the  time  of  David  or  Jehoshaphat, 
which  is  more  than  even  the  most  destructive  critics 
are  willing  to  assert.  The  arginnentum  e  silentio 
has  no  force  unless  it  be  shown,  that  to  legislate 
on  this  topic  fell  within  the  scope  and  purpose  of 
this  law.  It  regulates  simply  the  Covenant-relation 
between  Jehovah  and  his  people.  Shall  we  conclude 
from  the  silence  as  to  circumcision  and  leprosy, 
and  many  other  topics,  that  these  were  unknown  in 
the  tenth  or  ninth  century  }  But  we  have  no  more 
right  to  draw  any  inference  from  the  fact  that  no 
priests  are  mentioned  here.  Moreover,  an  evidently 
prospective  statement  is  made  (Exod.  xxiv.  i,  9)  con- 
cerning Aaron,  Nadab,  and  Abihu,  who  are  com- 
manded with  Moses  to  come  up  to  the  Lord.  By 
this  distinction  they  are  singled  out  from  the  rest  of 
the  people;  and  on  no  other  ground  could  this  dis- 
tinction of  Aaron's  sons  have  been  made,  than  in 
view  of  their  future  priesthood,  and  their  appearing 
before  God  in  the  tabernacle. 

Deuteronomy  is  quoted  as  testifying  to  the  actual 
state  of  affairs  during  the  transition  period  immedi- 
ately before  the  centralization  under  Josiah.     It  con- 


90  THE  PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

tains,  we  are  told,  the  reminiscences  of  what  the 
Covenant-law  represented  as  indispensable  reality. 
The  Deuteronomist  writes  throughout  in  a  polemic 
tone,  and  assumes  the  character  of  a  reformer.  It 
indicates  certainly  no  great  concession  when  we  ad- 
mit that  the  Deuteronomic  Code  enforces  and  incul- 
cates unity  of  worship  more  than  any  thing  else.  To 
draw  from  this  the  direct  inference,  that  it  must  be 
both  the  product  of,  and  the  norm  for,  the  re-action 
against  Bamoth-worship  in  the  latter  part  of  the  sev- 
enth century  B.C.,  is  very  hasty  and  sweeping. 
What  the  critics  may  be  called  upon  to  prove,  is  not 
that  Deuteronomy  had  a  striking  fitness  to  serve  as 
a  reform-Code  in  the  days  of  King  Josiah.  Nobody 
denies  this,  and  there  is  abundant  evidence  that  it 
was  actually  used  thus.  Neither  will  the  evidence 
that  the  Code  could  accomplish  a  greater  and  more 
important  mission  in  the  seventh  century  than  in 
the  Mosaic  time,  justify  the  conclusion  that  it  owes 
its  origin  to  the  former,  and  not  to  the  latter.  God 
did  not  inspire  his  holy  word  for  a  single  age  or  gen- 
eration :  it  never  returneth  void,  but  accomplishes 
sooner  or  later  all  that  which  he  pleases.  The  one 
and  the  essential  point  which  we  wish  the  higher 
criticism  to  establish,  is  this,  that  the  Code  does  not 
fit  into  the  historical  situation,  by  which,  according  to 
its  own  testimony,  it  was  called  forth.  As  far  as  we 
know,  this  has  never  been  done.  The  two  preceding 
points  have  been  settled,  which  it  required  surely  no 
higher  criticism  to  do  ;  but  we  object  to  a  use  of  them 
as  if  they  warranted  an  inference  that  can  only  be 
drawn  from  the  third.     Is  there  any  impropriety  in 


UNITY,    OR   PLURALITY,    OF  SANCTUARY?       9 1 

the  tone  and  contents  of  the  book,  when  we  realize 
that  the  Israelites  were  to  enter  upon  the  possession 
of  a  land,  for  centuries  defiled  by  a  heathen  cultus  so 
that  almost  every  high  place  would  by  its  associa- 
tions expose  them  to  the  utmost  danger  of  relapsing 
into  idolatry  and  nature-worship  ?  If  ever  a  time 
called  for  an  urgent  appeal  to  the  people  to  maintain 
the  centralization  of  their  cultus  as  a  safeguard 
against  Canaanitish  influences,  it  was  the  latter  part 
of  the  Mosaic  period.  And  the  remarkable  fact,  that 
Deuteronomy  emphasizes  as  much  the  permanence 
of  the  once  established  sanctuary  as  its  unity,  suits 
far  better  the  Mosaic  time  than  the  seventh  century, 
when  the  thought  that  the  temple  could  be  removed 
from  Jerusalem  would  have  been  considered  ab- 
surd. Entirely  too  much  has  been  made  of  the  fre- 
quently recurring  expressions  :  "  the  place  which  the 
Lord  your  God  shall  choose  Onr)  out  of  all  your 
tribes  to  put  i^^"^)  his  name  there  (j^ii^S)."  Riehm 
asserts  that  this  could  not  have  been  spoken  by 
Moses  with  reference  to  the  uncertain  place  of  the 
tabernacle.  But  here  criticism,  otherwise  so  averse 
to  prophetic  foresight,  seems  to  claim  for  Moses  a 
minute  knowledge  of  the  future  fate  of  the  sanctuary. 
What  else  could  Moses  expect  than  that,  after  the 
conquest  of  Canaan,  a  definite  place  would  be  chosen 
by  God  to  dwell  there,  either  in  tabernacle  or  temple  t 
Even  long  after  the  Mosaic  age,  in  the  same  time  to 
which  critics  ascribe  the  origin  of  Deuteronomy,  all 
these  terms  were  applied  to  the  tabernacle  and  its 
locality  by  Jer.  vii.  12.  D-^  ^r?iy  ^rip3'^  nivx  iVi;;:!. 
So  much  about  the  prospective  character  of  Deu- 


92  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

teronomy.  Since  it  has  a  retrospective  side  also,  we 
must  briefly  inquire  whether  this  lends  stronger 
support  to  the  critical  view.  Does  Deuteronomy 
paint  the  past  with  such  colors  as  compel  us  to  pos- 
tulate between  it  and  the  Covenant-law  a  period  of 
at  least  two  centuries  ? 

We  are  referred  chiefly  to  such  expressions  as  the 
following :  ''  Ye  shall  not  do  after  all  the  things 
that  we  do  here  this  day,  every  man  whatsoever  is 
right  in  his  own  eyes  "  (xii.  8,  scqq).  Deuteronomy,  it 
is  said,  "  opposes  consciously  "  *'  what  we  are  now  ac- 
customed to  do."  Its  reform  is  not  merely  modify- 
ing, but  condemning,  previous  legislation,  not  only 
reformatory,  but  polemic.  And  to  explain  this 
marked  difference  between  it  and  the  Jehovist,  a 
considerable  interval  of  time  must  be  assumed.  It  is 
impossible,  if  the  Covenant-law  had  been  promulgated 
at  Sinai  and  Deuteronomy  in  the  plains  of  Moab,  that 
the  latter  should  condemn  what  the  former  had  ap- 
proved of. 

In  answer  to  this  we  remark,  — 

1.  The  promulgation  of  the  Levitical  Code,  which 
according  to  our  view  falls  between  the  Covenant-law 
and  Deuteronomy,  has  been  overlooked  here  by  the 
critics.  The  tabernacle  represented  absolute  unity 
of  worship  ;  and,  this  having  been  abandoned  in  the 
desert,  it  is  not  Strange  that  Deuteronomy  con- 
demns in  the  most  polemic  terms  a  subsequent  re- 
lapse into  previous  customs,  which  had  now  become 
unallowable. 

2.  That  such  a  subsequent  relapse  took  place  dur- 
ing the  thirty-eight  years  of  wandering  in  the  desert 


UNITY,    OR   PLURALITY,    OF  SANCTUARY?       93 

under  the  judgment  of  God,  is  proved  by  historical 
testimony,  not  only  that  of  the  Pentateuch,  but  also  of 
Amos  V.  25,  26.  Whatever  may  be  the  more  definite 
exegesis  of  this  difficult  passage,  it  doubtless  alludes 
to  such  a  state  of  affairs  as  Deuteronomy  condemns. 
It  is  true  that  Amos  does  not  directly  charge  the 
Israelites  with  having  sacrificed  in  a  plurality  of 
places  at  the  same  time,  but  only  that  they  had 
"  taken  up  the  tabernacle  of  Moloch  and  Chiun  their 
images,  the  star  of  their  god,  which  they  made  to 
themselves."  But  it  is  clear  that  the  former  is  a  di- 
rect inference  from  the  latter  statement.  Unity  of 
worship  stood  and  fell  with  pure  Jahveism,  of  which 
the  central  idea  is  the  recognition  of  one  personal 
God,  to  whom  belongs  the  initiative  in  all  that  per- 
tains to  his  service.  The  moment  this  definite  and 
exclusive  idea  is  lost,  there  returns  with  the  vague 
conceptions  of  nature-worship,  the  unlimited  freedom 
to  sacrifice  at  all  places  where  this  uncircumscribed 
deity  of  nature  reveals  itself;  i.e.,  everywhere.  That 
the  idolatry  to  which  Amos  refers  was  conducted 
throughout  the  camp,  and  not  centralized  in  the  tab- 
ernacle, admits  of  no  doubt ;  and  this  alone  furnishes 
a  sufficient  ground  for  the  polemical  tone  of  Deuter- 
onomy. For  it  is  true  of  the  past  as  well  as  of  the 
future,  that  the  prophet's  eye  takes  in  more  than  a 
single  day  :  it  covers  periods,  and  sees  them  in  the 
light  of  their  most  significant  features.  Hence  the 
prophet  Moses,  looking  back  upon  the  last  forty  years, 
could  even  in  the  fields  of  Moab,  at  the  dawn  of  a 
new  period,  truthfully  say,  ''  Not  as  we  are  now  accus- 
tomed to  do." 


94  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

3.  The  protest  against  a  plurality  of  places  of  sac- 
rifice is  brought  into  close  connection  throughout  the 
Code  with  the  warning  against  heathen  idolatry  (Deut. 
xii.  2,  3,  and  so  passim).  But  the  critics  are  emphatic 
in  telling  us  that  Bamoth-worship  was  Jahveh-wor- 
ship.  Accordingly,  this  feature  suits  the  Mosaic 
period  far  better  than  the  age  of  the  later  Judaic 
kings.  The  dark  future  and  the  still  darker  past 
combined  in  these  days  of  Moses  to  inspire  him  with 
fear  for  Israel's  corrupt  tendencies  in  this  direction. 

4.  That  Deuteronomy  in  its  general  representa- 
tions often  approaches  very  closely  to  the  later  times, 
proves  nothing  more  than  that  we  have  here  an  ex- 
ample of  generic  prophecy.  These  later  evils  were 
the  natural  results  of  the  dangers  to  which  Israel  was 
exposed  in  the  midst  of  a  heathen  environment.  It 
did  not  require  a  great  amount  of  supernatural  fore- 
sight to  discern  them  beforehand.  And  all  critics 
admit  that  Deuteronomy,  on  the  whole,  has  a  pro- 
phetic character.  How  can  it  awake  our  surprise, 
that  the  prescription  of  a  general  remedy  for  a  gen- 
eral class  of  evils  was  found  appropriate  as  often  and 
as  late  as  the  occasion  or  the  necessity  required  } 

5.  We  close  with  the  remark,  that  in  view  of  the 
striking  resemblance  between  the  Mosaic  time  and 
the  state  of  religion  in  the  seventh  century,  and  the 
almost  perfect  fitting  of  Deuteronomy  into  the  his- 
torical circumstances  of  both,  it  must  surprise  us,  that 
the  critics  have  not  been  bold  enough  to  reject  the 
whole  history  of  Israel's  apostasy,  and  wandering  in 
the  desert,  as  a  "historical  fiction,"  a  new  and  unpre- 
cedented example  of  carrying  back  the  present  into 


UNITY,    OR   PLURALITY,    OF  SANCTUARY?       95 

the  past  with  a  Jesuitical  intention.  If  the  attempt 
has  been  successful  in  the  case  of  the  tabernacle,  we 
do  not  see  why  it  should  not  be  practicable  here. 
But  if  there  are  so  many  te-mptations  to  reiterate  the 
bold  hypothesis,  and  nevertheless  the  stern  reality  of 
history  would  not  allow  them,  it  may  well  serve  us  as 
a  warning  not  to  yield  too  readily  to  similar  facts, 
presented  in  the  same  attractive  light,  where,  with  a 
little  less  historical  testimony,  the  critics  have  actu- 
ally risked  the  dangerous  step  of  proclaiming  that 
the  history  of  the  past  is  but  an  embellished  repro- 
duction of  a  subsequent  present.  We  are  content  to 
call  neither  a  counterfeit  of  the  other,  but  to  find  in 
both  the  genuine  reflection,  which  in  all  times  and  all 
places  the  invariable  methods  of  God's  dealing  with 
men  will  produce  in  the  mirror  of  history. 

According  to  Wellhausen,  there  is  no  other  differ- 
ence between  Deuteronomy  and  the  Priest  Code  on 
this  point  than  that  the  latter  takes  for  granted 
what  the  former  requires.  With  regard  to  a  second 
point  closely  allied  to  the  one  just  discussed,  the 
case  stands  different.  We  must,  in  the  second 
place,  examine  the  pretended  development  of  the 
sacrificial  system. 


96  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 


CHAPTER    IX. 

THE  SACRIFICIAL  SYSTEM. 

HERE  the  Jehovist  and  Deiiteronomist  go  to- 
gether, and  stand  diametrically  opposed  to  Eze- 
kiel  and  the  Priest  Code.  And  even  within  the 
limits  of  the  Priest  Code  itself,  an  expansion  of 
the  ceremonial  is  traceable.  Wellhausen  makes 
substantially  the  following  statements  :  — 

1.  According  to  the  Jehovist  and  the  Deiiterono- 
mist, sacrifices  are  a  universal  and  extremely  simple 
means  of  honoring  the  Deity,  and  conciliating  his 
favor.  They  are  pre-Mosaic,  and  along  the  line  of 
Jacob,  Isaac,  Abraham,  Noah,  go  back  to  the  begin- 
nings of  humanity,  to  Cain  and  Abel.  The  Elohist, 
on  the  other  hand,  represents  the  sacrificial  worship 
as  an  immediate  divine  institution,  characteristically 
Mosaic  in  origin. 

2.  With  the  Jehovist  and  in  Deuteronomy  the 
important  question  is,  "  To  whom  1 "  The  Elohist 
emphasizes  the  questions,  "  When,  where,  and  by 
whom  ?  "  In  other  words,  the  Jehovist  has  not,  and 
the  Elohist  has,  an  elaborate  programme  of  ritual. 

3.  In  the  Jehovistic  and  Deuteronomic  Codes,  no 
other  than  burnt-offerings  {plah)  and  peace-  (or  thank-) 
offerings    {she /cm y    zebah,    zcbah    shclauiiin)    appear. 


THE  SACRIFICIAL   SYSTEM.  97 

Moreover,  the  olah  constitutes  no  separate  class  for 
itself,  but  is  simply  the  substitute  in  a  large  zebah 
(consisting  of  several  animals)  of  a  single  whole  vic- 
tim for  all  the  pieces  of  fat  and  the  blood,  other- 
wise offered  to  God,  of  each  individual  animal. 
Hence  olah  occurs  almost  always  in  connection  with 
the  zcbahim  in  the  singular  number.  That  part  of 
every  zebaJi  which  came  upon  the  altar  (fat  and 
blood)  could  appropriately  be  called  olah.  Still, 
Wellhausen  admits  that  the  term  is  never  used  in 
this  sense,  but  always  denotes  a  oXoKavcrrov.  In 
Ezekiel  and  the  Priest  Code  the  order  is  reversed, 
and  zebali  has  become  subordinate  to  the  olah.  The 
altar  is  called  inizbah-ha-olah  (the  altar  of  burnt- 
offering).  Two  new  kinds  of  sacrifices  are  added,  — 
chattatJi  (sin-offering)  and  asJiam  (trespass-offering). 

4.  It  is  claimed  that  we  have  a  gradual  modifica- 
tion of  the  idea  of  sacrifice. 

{a)  The  primitive  conception  is  that  of  a  meal  in 
which  the  Deity  is  host,  and  the  offerer  a  guest.  Sac- 
rifices are  identical  with  sacrificial  meals. 

{b)  Next  comes  the  sJiclcm  (peace-offering)  of  the 
Priest  Code  with  a  reminiscence  of  the  old  custom, 
in  so  far  as  the  sacrificial  meal  is  retained.  The 
modification  consists  in  the  giving  of  the  breast  and 
the  right  shoulder  to  the  priest.  This  is  a  first  re- 
striction upon  the  conception  of  a  meal. 

{c)  Then  follows  the  olah  (burnt-offering)  of  the 
Priest  Code.  Here  also  the  priests  have  their  part 
in  the  skin.  The  whole  victim  is  burnt  upon  the 
altar,  which  still  admits  the  conception  of  a  one- 
sided meal,  consumed  by  God  alone. 


gS  THE   PENTATEUCH  A  L    CODES  MOSAIC. 

{cf)  In  the  cJiattatJi  (sin-offering)  and  asJiam  (tres- 
pass-offering), even  this  is  lost ;  since  none  of  the 
fiesh  is  brought  upon  the  altar,  but  the  whole 
eaten  by  the  priests.  All  that  could  remind  of  a 
sacrificial  meal,  as  flour,  oil,  wine,  salt,  is  wanting ;  so 
that  the  last  trace  of  the  original  idea  is  effaced. 

5.  As  an  example  of  modification  within  the 
limits  of  the  Priest  Code  itself,  stands  the  case  of 
the  offering  of  incense  and  altar  of  incense.  The 
latter  is  unknown  to  the  older  parts  of  the  Code,  not 
mentioned  among  the  utensils  of  the  tabernacle, 
Exod.  xxv.-xxix.,  but  spoken  of  at  the  end,  in  a  sepa- 
rate passage,  evidently  of  later  origin  (xxx.  i,  etc.). 
The  rite  of  the  most  solemn  sin-offering,  according 
to  Exod.  xxix..  Lev.  viii.  and  ix.,  was  not  performed 
at  this  altar.  On  the  Day  of  Atonement,  Aaron 
offers  incense,  not  on  the  altar,  but  in  a  censer  be- 
fore the  mercy-seat  within  the  veil.  So  also  Lev.  x.. 
Num.  xvi.,  xvii.  In  all  these  chapters,  the  altar  of 
burnt-offering  is  called  Jia-niizbeaJi,  which  precludes 
the  existence  of  another  altar.  In  the  later  sections 
of  the  Pentateuchal  Code,  the  name  inizbaJi-Jia-olah 
appears  ;  and  these  are  exactly  the  passages  which 
know  the  altar  of  incense.  This  whole  idea  of  a 
golden  altar  was  an  after-development  from  that  of 
the  golden  table  of  show-bread.  Other  points  in 
which  a  development  is  traceable  are  mentioned  by 
Wellhausen  ;  e.g.,  the  flour  first  used  was  nr?p.  (^mcal), 
the  Priest  Code  demands  nSb  {fijie  floiu).  The  old 
custom  of  boiling  the  meat  gave  place  to  roasting, 
—  a  refinement  in  the  rite,  of  course,  arising  from 
a  refinement  of  the  eater's  taste. 


THE  SACRIFICIAL   SYSTEM.  99 

With  reference  to  all  these  points,  we  would 
remark,  — 

1.  If  Deuteronomy  lays  so  much  stress  on  the 
centralization  of  the  cultus,  it  would  be  naturally 
expected,  provided  this  were  the  formative  principle 
of  the  development,  as  Wellhausen  claims,  that  a 
corresponding  change  would  be  noticeable  in  its  sac- 
rificial prescriptions.  This,  however,  is  not  the  case. 
We  have  Wellhausen's  own  confession  that  Deuter- 
onomy falls  in  with  the  Jehovist  on  the  whole  line. 
This  is  a  clear  proof  that  the  alleged  discrepancies 
are  not  to  be  explained  on  the  principle  of  develop- 
ment, but  out  of  the  peculiar  aim  of  each  Code  in 
particular.  In  Deuteronomy,  to  say  the  least,  we 
have  positive  proof  that  the  two  conceptions  of  sacri- 
fice —  that  of  a  ceremonial  act  bound  to  a  single 
place,  and  that  of  a  joyful  meal  —  are  not  exclusive, 
but  mutually  supplement  each  other. 

2.  The  contrast  that  the  Jehovistic  legislation  is 
only  concerned  with  the  question  ''to  whom  .-^  "  and 
the  Priest  Code  exclusively  emphasizes,  "  how,  when, 
where,  and  by  whom  V  is  by  far  too  sharply  drawn. 
We  find  with  the  Jehovist,  provisions  in  the  latter 
direction  (Exod.  xx.  24-26,  xxiii.  18,  19).  On  the 
contrary,  the  Levitical  law  enforces  principles  which, 
according  to  the  critics,  are  Jehovistic  (e.g.,  Lev.  xix. 
4,  5,  xx.  1-5). 

3.  That  sacrifices  were  originally  extremely  simple 
in  their  ritual,  and  pre-Mosaic  in  their  essential  fea- 
tures, does  not  prove  any  thing  against  the  Mosaic 
origin  of  the  Priest  Code.  The  Levitical  law 
nowhere    asserts   that   Moses   for  the  first   time   in- 


100         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

stituted  sacrifices  :  it  simply  states  that  the  ritual 
system,  as  adapted  to  Israel's  new  position  as  God's 
Covenant-people,  dates  from  the  Mosaic  period. 

4.  That  the  olaJi  did  not  originally  constitute  a 
separate  class  of  sacrifices  for  itself,  requires  stronger 
proof  than  Wellhausen  has  been  able  to  produce. 
All  that  he  shows,  is  that  olaJi  and  zebahim  were 
frequently  combined.  This,  however,  is  also  the  case 
in  the  Priest  Code.  The  impossibility  of  consider- 
ing the  olaJi  as  a  subordinate  part  of  the  zcbah  is 
manifest ;  because  the  fat  and  blood  of  an  individual 
zcbah  are  never  called  olah,  as  Wellhausen  is  obliged 
to  admit.  The  term  is  exclusively  employed  of 
whole-burnt  offerings,  6Ao;<ai;crra.  It  is  plain,  then, 
that  the  specific  difference  lies  not  in  the  coming 
upon  the  altar  :  in  other  words,  olah  and  zcbah  are 
esseiitietlly  distinct. 

5.  It  is  true  that  in  the  Jehovistic  Code,  only 
burnt-  and  peace-offerings  are  mentioned  (Exod.  xx. 
24,  xxiv.  5).  But,  on  the  one  hand,  nothing  can  be 
inferred  from  two  passages  :  on  the  other  hand,  as 
the  Levitical  Code  had  not  yet  been  promulgated, 
the  Covenant-law  retained  provisionally  the  older 
practice  and  ritiis. 

6.  Concerning  Wellhausen's  denial  of  the  actual 
existence  of  the  altar  of  incense,  we  remark,  — 

{a)  It  cannot  be  maintained  that  Exod.  xxx.  i-io  is 
out  of  place,  and  proves  itself  by  this  position  a  later 
appendix.  The  description  of  the  utensils  of  the 
tabernacle  began  with  the  ark,  and  ended  with  the 
altar  of  incense;  because  both  constituted,  as  it  were, 
the  two  polar  points  of  the  sanctuary.     Hence  the 


THE  SACRIFICIAL   SYSTEM.  lOI 

altar  is  called  D'^ip.  t^Vp  {Holy  of  holies),  in  preference 
to  the  candlestick,  and  table  of  showbread. 

{b)  That  the  altar  is  not  mentioned  in  connection 
with  the  most  solemn  rite  described  in  Exod.  xxix. 
(consecration  of  the  priests  commanded),  Lev.  viii. 
(the  same  executed),  and  Lev.  ix.  (entrance  of  Aaron 
and  his  sons  upon  their  actual  service),  need  not  sur- 
prise us  when  we  remember,  that  in  all  these  cases, 
the  priests,  while  still  undergoing  the  rite  of  conse- 
cration, are  not  treated  as  priests.  Hence  the  pre- 
scription of  Lev.  iv.,  to  put  some  of  the  blood  upon 
the  horns  of  the  altar  of  incense,  did  not  apply  here  ; 
because,  de  facto,  Aaron  was  not  a  high-priest  as  long 
as  the  induction  to  his  office  lasted.  Only  for  the 
sin-offering  of  the  high-priest  and  the  whole  con- 
gregation, was  the  blood  put  upon  the  altar  of  in- 
cense (Lev.   iv.   22,  scqq). 

if)  When,  according  to  Lev.  xvi.,  Aaron  on  the  Day 
of  Atonement  brought  incense  in  a  censer  before  the 
mercy-seat,  we  surely  could  not  expect  him  to  have 
carried  the  heavy  altar  within  the  veil.  And  that 
coals  are  taken  from  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  is 
equally  natural.  Even  the  fire  for  the  daily  offering 
of  incense  was  taken  from  this  altar.  The  only 
remaining  difficulty  is,  that  in  chap.  xvi.  only  one 
altar  is  mentioned  as  being  sprinkled  with  blood. 
''  The  altar  that  is  before  the  Lord  "  seems  to  denote 
the  olaJi  altar.  Universal  tradition  has  referred  it  to 
the  altar  of  incense  ;  and  so  does  Delitzsch  (Luth. 
Zeitschr.,  1880,  iii.  p.  118),  who  adds  the  remark,  that 
the  name  is  exclusively  used  of  the  golden  altar  in 
the  holy  place.     The  context,  however,  plainly  con- 


I02         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

tradicts  this  :  from  ver.  14-20  the  order  is  the  same 
as  in  the  recapitulation  of  ver.  33.  In  the  latter 
verse  the  altar  cannot  but  designate  the  olah  altar. 
Accordingly  we  must  understand  ver.  18  in  the  same 
sense.  The  chapter  distinguishes  throughout  be- 
tween (a)  the  holy  place  (here  the  Holy  of  holies), 
{b)  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  (r)  the  altar 
that  is  before  the  Lord,  which  can  only  mean  the 
altar  in  the  court. 

The  true  explanation  why  the  altar  of  incense  is 
not'  specially  mentioned,  is  that  it  was  included  under 
the  general  term,  "the  tabernacle  of  the  congrega- 
tion," together  with  the  candlestick  and  table  of 
show-bread.  On  the  contrary,  the  olaJi  altar  is 
marked  out,  beciuse  it  was  the  only  thing  in  the 
court  to  be  atoned  for.  The  phrase  "before  the 
Lord  "  is  evidently  intended  in  a  wider  sense  here, 
to  denote  that  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  stood  in 
front  of  the  whole  tabernacle,  God's  dwelling-place. 

{a)  Lev.  X.  and  Num.  xvi.,  xvii.,  as  extraordinary 
or  unlawful  transactions,  do  not  come  under  consider- 
ation here. 

{e)  It  is  untrue  that  the  name  ha-mizbeah,  applied 
to  the  olah  altar,  precludes  the  existence  of  another 
altar.  The  former  could  be  appropriately  designated 
by  that  name,  because  it  was  the  place  of  sacrifice, 
if  not  exclusively,  yet  par  excellence. 

if)  No  more  difficulty  is  created  by  the  fact,  that 
those  sections  of  the  Pentateuch  which  show  ac- 
quaintance with  the  altar  of  incense,  use  the  more 
definite  name  for  the  olah  altar,  whilst  those  which 
do  not  know  the  former,  call  the  latter  ha-mizbeah. 


THE  SACRIFICIAL   SYSTEM.  IO3 

The  simple  explanation  is,  that,  in  passages  where 
both  altars  are  referred  to,  a  closer  distinction  was 
necessary  to  prevent  confusion.  In  other  passages, 
where  only  the  olah  altar  was  mentioned,  this  was 
superfluous,  and  the  simple  name  ha-inizbcah  was 
sufficient  to  indicate  that  the  altar  par  excellence 
was  meant. 

{g)  Wellhausen  alleges  that  the  idea  of  a  golden 
altar  is  a  mere  development  of  that  of  the  golden 
table  of  showbread,  and  finds  confirmation  for  this 
theory  in  Ezek.  xli.  22.  ''The  altar  of  wood,"  etc.  ; 
''this  is  the  table  that  is  before  the  Lord."  The  fact 
is,  that  in  Ezekiel's  sanctum,  neither  candlestick  nor 
table  of  show-bread  appears,  —  which  once  more 
proves  how  absurd  it  is,  to  draw  from  his  Thora  any 
inference  as  to  the  state  of  the  ritual  in  his  days. 
The  statement  in  ver.  22  appUes  to  nothing  else  than 
to  the  very  altar  whose  existence  Wellhausen  denies. 
It  is  certainly  more  probable  that  the  prophet  called 
the  altar  a  table,  than  the  table  an  altar.  The  des- 
ignation of  the  altar  as  a  table  is  warranted  by 
post-exilic  usage.  Furthermore,  Ezekiel  clearly  dis- 
tinguishes two  altars  in  the  temple  (ix.  2). 


104         ^-^-^  PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC, 


CHAPTER    X. 


PRIESTS   AND   LEVITES. 


OUR  next  point  of  inquiry  concerns  the  priests 
and  Levites,  and  their  relation  to  each  other. 
Critics  claim  that  in  no  point  is  the  development 
more  clearly  traceable  step  by  step  than  here.  By 
a  gradual  restriction,  the  priestly  office  became  the 
exclusive  prerogative  of  the  so-called  sons  of  Aaron. 
Ezek.  xliv.  6-i  i  describes  the  degradation  of  the 
great  mass  of  Levites  from  priests  to  temple-ser- 
vants, and  is  the  bridge  between  Deuteronomy, 
which  recognizes  all  Levites  as  priests,  and  uses 
the  two  terms  interchangeably,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  Priest  Code  on  the  other  hand,  where  only  the 
sons  of  Aaron  are  allowed  to  appear  before  Jahveh. 
According  to  i  Kings  ii.  27,  35,  Abiathar  was  re- 
moved by  Solomon  from  the  priesthood  for  political 
reasons,  and  replaced  by  Zadok,  whose  descendants 
from  that  time  onward  seem  to  have  monopolized 
the  temple-service.  As  Deuteronomy  shows,  in  the 
days  of  King  Josiah  the  Levites  could  still  claim  an 
equal  right  to  this  service.  The  distinction  between 
the  sons  of  Zadok  and  the  other  Levites  was  not 
one  of  rank,  but  simply  of  actual  service.  Accord- 
ingly we  find  them  in  juxtaposition  in  statements  like 


PRIESTS  AND   LEVITES.  I05 

the  following  :  D^i'^n-Si)  pnv  (Zadok  and  all  the  Le- 
vites),  2  Sam.  xv.  24  (Graf,  p.  48).  Only  within  the 
circle  of  the  sons  of  Zadok  themselves,  Graf  admits 
that  there  may  have  been  a  certain  gradation  in 
rank,  from  the  lowest  temple-servant  upward  to  the 
^njn  |rl3  or  v}^-^t\  jriD  {high-priest),  2  Kings  xii.  11, 
xxii.  4,  8 ;  Jer.  xx.  i.  With  the  centralization  of 
Deuteronomy,  the  seed  for  the  future  distinction  of 
rank  was  sown.  The  Levitical  priests  of  the  prov- 
ince, separated  from  their  altars,  could  no  longer 
remain  priests.  Deuteronomy  still  puts  them  on  a 
par  with  the  sons  of  Zadok ;  but  the  latter  had  long 
ceased  to  consider  them  as  equals,  and  now  began  to 
question  their  rights  altogether.  This  was  the  ac- 
tual state  of  affairs,  which  Ezekiel  tries  to  present  in 
a  moral  light.  He  reproves  the  idolatrous  minister- 
ing of  the  Levites  as  priests  at  the  Bamoth  ;  and,  in 
punishment  for  this  iniquity,  they  are  degraded  to 
temple-servants.  Thus  they  shall  atone  for  what 
was  most  abominable  in  the  prophet's  estimation, 
and  henceforward  the  Levites  exist  as  an  order  dis- 
tinct from  the  priests.  Notwithstanding  this  moral 
semblance,  it  is  clear  that  Ezekiel's  retributive  jus- 
tice was  of  a  peculiar  retrogressive  kind  :  he  proclaims 
as  a  punishment  what  had  long  ago  been  the  real 
situation,  and  was  after  all  but  a  natural  consequence 
of  the  centralization.  What  the  prophet  did,  was  to 
settle  the  controversy  between  Levites  and  Zadok- 
ites  in  favor  of  the  latter.  He  did  not  claim  for 
the  house  of  Zadok,  Aaronic  descent,  because  in  his 
days  it  was  well  known  that  the  old  line  had  ceased 
durin"-  the  rei^^n  of   Solomon.     Not   until   after  the 


I06         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

exile,  when  the  thread  of  tradition  had  been  lost, 
could  the  Priest  Code  present  this  claim,  and  the 
chronicler  establish  it  by  a  series  of  artificial  gene- 
alogies. 

We  have  accordingly  in  this  development  the  fol- 
lowinsf  sta2;es :  — 

1.  Jehovistic  Code.  No  mention  of  priests.  Young 
men  offer  sacrifices  (Exod.  xxiv.  3-8).  A  priestly 
order,  but  no  priestly  family. 

2.  Deuteronomy  recognizes  a  hereditary  clcrus 
consisting  of  numerous  families  with  exclusive  and 
indisputable  privileges.  Also  the  name  ''  Levitical 
priests  "  appears.  The  principle  of  heredity,  though 
afterwards  carried  back  into  the  Mosaic  age,  actually 
dates  from  the  later  times  of  the  kingdom,  and  was 
entirely  Judaic  in  origin. 

3.  Ezekiel  legalizes  the  distinction  between  the 
priestly  family  connected  with  the  temple  and  the 
families  before  connected  with  the  Bamoth.  This 
distinction  had  long  been  valid  as  a  matter  of  fact  ; 
viz.,  ever  since  the  Bamoth  were  destroyed.  Now, 
however,  it  is  clothed  with  divine  authority. 

4.  What  Ezekiel  saw  it  necessary  to  justify  as  a 
divinely  authenticated  innovation,  the  Priest  Code 
finds  it  possible  to  proclaim  as  an  '*  eternal  statute." 
Reminiscences  of  opposition  appear  in  the  history 
of  Korah's  rebellion  (compare  also  Num.  xvii.  10, 
xviii.  23).  Here  we  have  the  regular  gradation 
in  descending  order  :  Aaron  as  high-priest,  his 
sons  as  priests,  his  tribe  as  Levites,  constitute 
a  systematic  hierarchy.  In  pre-exilic  history  and 
literature,  an  imposing  figure  like  that  of  the  high- 


PRIESTS  AND   LEVITES.  107 

priest  was  wholly  unknown.  The  priesthood  was 
rather  a  royal  dependency.  But  in  the  Priest  Code 
the  high-priest  is  sovereign,  the  top  of  the  pyramid 
of  Israel's  congregation  reaching  into  heaven,  and 
unto  Jahveh  himself.  A  theocratic  king  beside  him 
is  unthinkable.  That  the  head  of  the  cultus  is  at 
the  same  time  head  of  the  nation,  points  us  to  a 
time  when  the  nation  was  robbed  of  its  secular  inde- 
pendence, and  had  nothing  left  but  its  ecclesiastical 
organization.  Israel  has  become  a  congregation, 
n"j>*.  Dependence  on  foreign  power  is  the  neces- 
sary prerequisite  for  the  origin  of  a  hierarchy. 
Hence  the  Priest  Code  must  be  post  exilic. 

In  commenting  upon  this  ingenious  theory,  it  will 
be  necessary  more  than  once  to  cast  a  side-glance  at 
the  historical  arguments  by  which  it  is  fortified. 
Our  remarks  are  the  following  :  — 

I.  It  is  positively  untrue  that  the  Jehovistic  law 
knows  nothing  of  a  priestly  order.  That  it  is  only 
occasionally  alluded  to,  and  not  repeatedly  mentioned, 
cannot  awake  suspicion  :  for  {a)  it  did  not  exist  when 
the  Covenant-law  was  promulgated  ;  {U)  the  purpose 
of  this  law  was  not  to  regulate  the  ritual  system,  but 
simply  to  furnish  a  basis  on  which  it  could  be  con- 
structed. On  the  other  hand,  that  incidental  allu- 
sions and  prospective  remarks  'should  be  made  in 
reference  to  the  subject  can  be  expected.  The  fol- 
lowing passages,  which  are  Jehovistic,  fully  warrant 
us  in  saying  that  the  Covenant-law  is  not  contradic- 
tory to,  but  rather  preparatory  for,  the  more  full 
Levitical  legislation  (Exod.  iv.  14,  xix.  22,  xxxii.  i, 
29,  xxxiii.  7-1 1).     VVellhausen   rules   out    such    pas- 


I08  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

sages  from  the  list  of  arguments  by  mere  capricious 
remarks  like  the  following :  "  Exod.  xxxii.  29  stands 
on  the  basis  of  Deuteronomy,"  and  ''  Exod.  xix.  22 
can  hardly  (?)  have  belonged  to  the  original  Jehovis- 
tic  sources  "  (Prolegomena,  2d  ed.,  p.  146). 

2.  It  is  inaccurate,  also,  to  say  that  Deuteronomy 
puts  the  priests  and  Levites  on  a  par.  No  argument 
for  this  can  be  drawn  from  the  absence  of  a  strongly 
marked  and  everywhere  emphasized  distinction.  As 
we  hope  to  show  hereafter,  this  absence  is  wholly  in 
accordance  with  the  general  character  of  the  book. 
Moreover,  Deuteronomy  does  not  aim  to  give  com- 
plete or  precisely  formulated  directions,  but  only 
compact  popular  restatements  of  matters  minutely 
regulated  elsewhere.  That  the  author  speaks  of 
Levites  in  general  in  not  a  few  passages,  where,  more 
accurately  expressed,  the  priests  are  meant,  must  be 
explained  on  the  rule,  that  the  genus  may  be  used  to 
designate  the  species,  where  there  is  no  danger  of 
ambiguity.  The  same  inaccuracy  occurs  in  the  his- 
torical books  (compare  Josh.  iii.  3,  viii.  33,  xiii.  14, 
xviii.  7;  i  Sam.  ii.  27;  2  Chron.  v.  5,  xxx.  27)  :  even 
IMalachi,  who  wrote  after  the  pretended  promulgation 
of  the  Priest  Code,  speaks  in  the  same  manner  (li. 
4).  The  priests  were  Levites  in  reality.  Is  it  not 
natural  that  in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch, 
in  laws  enacted  while  yet  Aaron  and  his  sons  occu- 
pied the  priestly  office,  the  priests  should  have  been 
designated  by  the  familiar  term  "sons  of  Aaron".'* 
and  that  afterwards,  when  both  Aaron  and  two  of  his 
sons  had  died,  in  a  book  of  prophetic  character,  the 
more  general  term  "  Levitical  priests"  should  have 


PRIESTS  AND   LEVITES.  1 09 

been  chosen,  denoting  ''those  Levites  who  shall  be 
priests  at  any  time  of  the  future  "  ?  The  lack  of  defi- 
niteness  in  Deuteronomy,  where  it  employs  these 
terms,  cannot  be  construed  as  proving  entire  igno- 
rance of  the  distinction.  The  passage  (Deut.  xviii. 
i)  is  instructive  in  this  respect.  Graf  and  other  crit- 
ics hold  that  "  Levites  "  stands  here  in  apposition  to 
"priests,"  and  the  expression  "all  the  tribe  of  Levi  " 
to  "priests  (and)  Levites."  On  this  critical  presup- 
position we  have  three  terms  to  express  that  which 
each  of  them  separately  would  have  expressed  with 
sufficient  clearness,  so  that  at  least  two  are  super- 
fluous. Under  these  circumstances  we  are  certainly 
justified  in  taking  an  alternative,  and  considering  the 
construction  as  an  asyndeton :  "  The  Levitical  priests 
(and)  the  whole  tribe  of  Levi,"  which  is  in  full  ac- 
cordance with  the  context.  In  ver.  5,  if  the  priest- 
hood of  the  whole  tribe  was  presupposed,  we  would 
naturally  expect  "  him  (the  priest)  and  his  brethren 
forever."  The  phrase  "him  and  his  sons''  strikes 
us  as  more  suitable  to  a  hereditary  priesthood  within 
a  single  family,  than  to  the  existence  of  a  priestly 
tribC; 

Other  instances  of  this  generic  designation  of  the 
priests  occur  in  the  Old  Testament,  even  in  books 
written  after  the  exile,  which  cannot  but  have  known 
the  distinction  between  Levites  and  priests  (Ezra  x. 
5  ;  Neh.  x.  28,  38,  xi.  20). 

But,  we  are  told,  Deuteronomy  allows  the  Levites 
" to  stand  before  the  Lord,"  ry\r\\  ^jaS  ip;; ;  "minister 
to  the  Lord,"  njn:  ^w'l  n^:^  (nin;  n^ — );  "bless  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord,"  nin;  d*^3  ']'\1;  all  these  being 


no         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

in  the  Priest  Code  the  exclusive  prerogatives  of  the 
Aaronic  priests. 

These  expressions  occur  in  five  passages  (x.  8,  xvii. 
12,  xviii.  5,  7,  xxi.  5).  In  two,  however,  the  functions 
referred  to  are  predicated  of  the  priests,  no  mention 
being  made  of  Levites  ;  viz.,  xvii.  12  and  xxi.  5.  We 
have  only  to  examine  the  remaining  ones,  x.  8,  xviii. 
5,7.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that  in  those  very  books, 
which,  according  to  the  critics,  have  reconstructed 
the  history,  and  thus  are  beyond  suspicion  of  non-con- 
formity to  the  Levitical  law,  —  that  in  those  very 
books,  we  say,  the  identical  expressions  are  applied  to 
the  Levites.  How  absurd  it  would  be  to  infer  from 
2  Chron.  xxix.  4,  5,  11,  12,  where  the  Levites  are 
addressed  by  Hezekiah  as  "  standing  before  the  Lord, 
and  serving  and  ministering  unto  him,"  that  the 
author  of  Chronicles  did  not  distinguish  between 
priests  and  Levites  !  (compare  also  2  Chron.  xxiii.  6). 
Why  shall  we  make  the  expression  to  prove  in  Deu- 
teronomy what  it  cannot  prove  with  any  possibihty 
in  Chronicles  t  If  Deuteronomy  be  wTitten  before 
the  Priest  Code,  then  Chronicles  also. 

We  need  not  deny  that  these  phrases  originally  in- 
dicated a  function  peculiar  to  the  priesthood,  espe- 
cially in  the  case  of  "'  '^aS  ir?;*  {stand  before  JchovaJi). 
But  it  is  equally  plain,  that  they  gradually  assumed  a 
looser  and  wider  signification,  which  made  them  alike 
applicable  to  the  work  of  both  priests  and  Levites. 
The  name  for  all  service  at  the  sanctuary  was  taken 
a  potion  ivom.  its  most  honorable  and  important  part 
in  which  the  priests  officiated.  This  fully  accounts 
for  their  exclusive  use  in  the  middle  books  with  refer- 


PRIESTS  AND   LEVITES.  Ill 

ence  to  the  priests,  and  for  their  modified  sense  in 
subsequent  literature. 

All  that  remains  of  the  argument,  is  that  in  x.  8  the 
phrase  "to  bless  in  his  name"  is  without  any  speci- 
fication applied  to  the  whole  tribe  of  Levi.  There 
are  no  other  instances  in  which  this  same  construc- 
tion, ^"^5  with  the  preposition  3,  is  used,  when  others 
than  priests  are  spoken  of.  Still,  this  is  far  from  ad- 
mitting that  the  verse  under  consideration  teaches 
the  equality  of  priests  and  Levites.  The  best  exe- 
gesis seems  to  be,  to  take  the  whole  verse  as  predi- 
cated in  general  of  the  whole  tribe  of  Levi.  Of  the 
duties  enumerated,  part  belonged  to  the  Levites  and 
priests  in  common,  as,  "to  stand  before  the  Lord," 
"to  minister  unto  him;"  part  to  the  Levites  espe- 
cially, as  the  bearing  of  the  ark  ;  part  to  the  priests 
alone,  as  "to  bless  in  the  Lord's  name."  All  this 
was  so  perfectly  self-evident,  that  no  specification 
was  needed. 

3.  Ezekiel's  Thora  is  for  the  modern  critics  what 
his  80?  /xot  TTov  (JT^  was  for  Archimedes.  With  their 
interpretation  of  it  and  the  inferences  drawn  there- 
from, the  whole  structure  of  their  historical  theories 
stands  or  falls.  At  first  blush,  the  point  would  seem 
to  have  been  very  badly  chosen  for  historical  argu- 
mentation. The  whole  section  is  of  a  highly  ideal 
character,  and  was  written  in  a  time  when,  from  his- 
toric reality,  the  cultus  had  become  already  a  distant 
dream,  and  the  prophetic  idealization  could  accord- 
ingly be  given  free  play.  It  is  needless  to  point  out 
in  detail  how  many  features  in  these  chapters  will  not 
admit  a  historical  or  literal  interpretation,  and  never 


112          THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

received  one  even  at  the  hand  of  the  most  obstinate 
literaHst.  It  has  been  reserved  for  the  higher  criti- 
cism to  handle  and  utihze  this  unwieldy  material  in 
the  most  sober  and  practical  way. 

In  the  face  of  their  ideal,  prospective  character,  the 
critics  have  been  bold  enough  to  make  these  chapters 
speak  for  the  past,  forgetting  that  the  threads  of  his- 
torical tradition  had  been  freely  interwoven  with 
those  of  bold  forecast  of  the  future,  so  as  to  form  a 
prophetic  mantle.  We  must  remember  that  this  is 
a  vision,  and  in  it  Ezekiel  sees  only  higher  spiritual 
realities  through  the  medium  of  an  ever-changing 
and  ever-growing  symbolism.  Though  the  latter  had, 
of  course,  its  points  of  contact  with  the  present  and 
the  past,  it  could  not  be  limited  by  them  :  the  essen- 
tially new  truth,  which  the  prophet  revealed,  required 
also  new  and  modified  forms,  in  which  to  clothe  it- 
self. It  is  from  this  point  of  view,  that  the  critics 
should  have  estimated  the  historical  significance  and 
value  of  what  they  are  accustomed  to  style  "Ezekiel's 
programme." 

But  let  us  grant,  that  there  is  at  least  a  background 
of  historical  truth  in  the  statements  of  Ezek.  xliv. 
5-16,  with  which  we  have  here  specially  to  deal. 
Do  they  bear  out  the  critical  theory  of  a  degradation 
of  some  Levitical  priests  to  temple-servants  as  the 
first  origin  of  the  legal  distinction  between  priests 
and  Levites } 

The  answer  to  this  question  can  only  be  obtained 
from  a  careful  and  fair  examination  of  the  passage 
itself.  Ezekiel  makes  three  statements  :  the  first 
contains    an    accusation,    the    second    an    announce- 


PRIESTS  AND   LEVITES.  II3 

ment  of  punishment,  the  third  confirms  a  privilege. 
I.  Uncircumcised  persons  have  been  used  for  menial 
employments  in  the  temple.  2.  Certain  Levites  have 
committed  idolatry,  and  in  punishment  are  hencefor- 
ward to  perform  the  same  menial  service,  formerly 
done  by  the  uncircumcised.  3.  Certain  Levitical 
priests,  specified  as  the  sons  of  Zadok,  who  have 
remained  faithful  when  the  others  apostatized,  are 
honored  with  the  exclusive  privilege  of  officiating 
before  the  Lord. 

Our  first  remark  is,  that  there  must  be  more  than 
an  incidental  connection  in  the  j^rophet's  mind  be- 
tween his  first  and  second  statement.  It  is  unnatu- 
ral to  suppose  that  both  are  mentioned  together, 
simply  because  the  removal  of  the  uncircumcised 
made  a  return  of  the  Levites  necessary,  or' because 
the  punishment  of  the  latter  required  the  removal  of 
the  former,  or  finally  because  by  a  play  of  history 
both  gave  the  prophet  an  occasion  for  ingenious 
combination.  A  more  than  superficial  reading  of  the 
passage  will  convince  us,  that  there  is  a  deeper,  more 
causal,  connection.  That  the  apostate  Levites  have 
to  occupy  the  place  of  the  uncircumcised,  is  for  no 
other  reason  than  because  by  their  apostasy  they  had 
made  the  employment  of  the  latter  possible.  They 
abandoned  what  was  their  specific  duty,  —  viz.,  the 
ministering  unto  the  priest  in  the  temple,  —  sinned 
themselves,  and  became  the  cause  of  the  defilement  of 
the  sanctuary.  Hence  a  double  penalty  is  inflicted  : 
I.  The  destruction  of  their  self-chosen  places  of  wor- 
ship; 2.  The  restitution  of  what  had  been  abstracted 
from  the  sanctuary,  by  their  becoming  again  temple- 
servants. 


114     ■    '^^^   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

We  regard  it  as  settled  by  this  interpretation,  that 
Ezekiel  does  more  than  spread  a  moral  mantle  over 
historical  facts.  His  words  imply  that  the  facts 
themselves  had  a  moral  quality.  The  Levites  who 
served  at  the  Bamoth  had  not  always  been  there,  but 
wilfully  left  their  original  position  at  the  only  legal 
sanctuary. 

The  prophet  does  not  further  specify  who  these 
Levites  were.  That  he  calls  them  Levites  (ver.  lo) 
decides  nothing,  since  his  terms  are  not  derived  from 
their  former  position,  but  already  from  the  future 
degradation  he  imposes.  Neither  does  the  fact  that 
their  destiny  to  officiate  as  temple-servants  is  con- 
sidered as  a  punishment,  prove,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  they  held  a  higher  position  at  the  sanctuary 
before.  The  only  thing  that  can  be  said  about  it,  is 
that  they  were  Levites :  whether  exclusively  non- 
Aaronic,  or  partly  Aaronic,  is  not  stated.  It  is  highly 
probable,  however,  that  both  priests  and  Levites,  in 
the  more  strict  sense  of  the  term,  were  found  amongst 
them. 

The  critical  allegation,  that  they  consisted  of  noth- 
ing else  than  Bamoth-priests  out  of  occupation,  rests 
on  the  arbitrary  assumption,  that  the  sons  of  Zadok 
are  honored,  not  for  their  exceptional  faithfulness  to 
Jehovah,  but  on  account  of  their  extraordinary  posi- 
tion. They  were  the  priestly  family  for  centuries  in 
charge  of  the  temple-worship.  Hence,  the  critics 
infer,  Ezekiel's  approval  of  their  attachment  to  Jeho- 
vah can  but  mean  a  prophetic  sanction  of  the  tem- 
ple as  the  only  legal  sanctuary,  and  at  the  same  time 
a  side-attack  upon  all  other  places  of  worship.     In 


PITIES TS  AND  LEVITES.  II5 

Other  words,  the  sons  of  Zadok  were  not  examples  of 
a  rare  attachment  to  Jehovah,  but  the  favored  incum- 
bents of  a  highly  lucrative  office.  It  was  not  a  ques- 
tion of  right  and  wrong,  but  of  facts.  If  all  this  be 
true,  if  they  were  not  only  the  original  and  highest, 
but  also  the  exclusive,  officers  of  the  temple,  our  posi- 
tion, that  the  Levites  now  condemned  to  perform 
menial  service,  had  once  shared  this  privilege  with 
the  sons  of  Zadok,  cannot  be  maintained.  If  the 
one  party  is  approved  simply  for  officiating  at  the 
temple,  then  the  other  was  condemned  simply  for 
officiating  at  the  Bamoth  ;  and  other  moral  consid- 
erations cannot  have  influenced  the  degradation  of 
the  latter. 

The  answer  to  the  question,  "  For  what  special 
reason  did  the  sons  of  Zadok  deserve  praise.'^"  will 
decide  every  thing.  A  priori  it  seems  improbable 
that  the  prophet  should  bestow  upon  them  such  a 
eulogy  simply  because  they  did  not  leave  their  com- 
fortable position  at  the  chief  sanctuary  of  the  land. 
It  needed  no  great  amount  of  self-abnegation  and 
pious  adherence  to  Jehovah,  to  make  them  stay 
where  they  were.  But  why  may  not  their  faithful- 
ness have  manifested  itself  in  quite  another  way  '^. 
We  know  from  history,  that  the  temple  itself  had 
been  more  than  once  the  central  seat  of  apostasy. 
Urijah  was  the  instrument  of  the  idolatrous  lusts  of 
King  Ahaz  ;  and,  when  Manasseh  defiled  the  temple, 
no  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  priests  is  so  much 
as  heard  of.  That  such  abominations  were  not  un- 
common, even  after  Josiah's  reform,  the  prophet's 
vision  in  chap.  viii.  sufficiently  shows.     Hence  there 


Il6          THE    PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

is  all  reasonable  ground  to  assume  that  the  merit  of 
the  sons  of  Zadok  consisted  in  something  more  than 
a  matter-of-fact  serving  in  the  Jerusalem  temple. 
They  evidently  had  remained  faithful  when  others, 
occupying  the  same  or  similar  privileges  with  them, 
had  gone  astray.  And,  instead  of  an  objection,  we 
may  find  in  this  high  praise,  with  which  their  conduct 
is  extolled,  a  confirmation  of  our  view  that  others 
had  abandoned  that  same  trust,  which  they  had  so 
faithfully  and  piously  kept. 

This  explains  how  Ezekiel  with  the  Priest  Code 
and  all  before  him  could  still  make  a  degradation  out 
of  that  which  the  critics  have  declared  to  be  expli- 
cable only  on  their  suppositions.  The  whole  solution 
lies  in  the  fact,  that  pcrha]3S  many  of  the  apostates 
had  been  priests  in  the  temple  before.  They  had 
left  the  central  sanctuary,  and  sought  the  Bamoth. 
In  the  reform  of  Josiah  they  lost  their  position.  Now, 
in  this  ideal  vision,  Ezekiel  describes  their  degrada- 
tion from  priests,  which  they  had  once  been  lawfully, 
and  afterwards  illegally,  to  Levites. 

But  is  not  this  an  objection  to  our  view,  that  cer- 
tainly the  majority  of  these  priests  of  the  Bamoth 
must  have  been  originally  Levites  }  How  in  tJieir 
case  will  the  punishment  apply  t  Can  the  restora- 
tion to  a  previous  state  after  apostasy  be  called  a 
penalty  for  the  latter }  In  rashly  answering  these 
questions  in  the  negative,  the  critics  have  found  a 
tempting  occasion  to  display  their  sarcasm.  Dr. 
Kuenen  asks,  ''  How  can  common  citizens  be  threat- 
ened with  the  penalty  that  henceforward  they  shall 
have  no  seat  and  vote  in  a  council  of  noblemen  "i  " 


PRIESTS  AND   LEVITES.  11/ 

But  what  if  these  citizens  had  either  legally  or  ille- 
gally possessed  for  a  considerable  time  this  right  of 
vote  and  session  ?  When  they  were  afterwards 
deprived  of  these  in  punishment  of  their  intrusion, 
could  anybody  take  exception  to  such  a  penalty  ? 
The  case  is  not  different  here.  The  Levites  had 
probably  left  the  temple,  aspiring  to  a  higher  posi- 
tion ;  viz.,  that  of  priests.  As  such  they  had  offici- 
ated at  the  Bamoth.  When  these  are  destroyed, 
their  punishment  is  made  to  consist  in  the  disgrace- 
ful and  humiliating  re-entrance  upon  functions  which 
in  self-exalting  pride  they  had  left.  What  is  there 
inappropriate  in  all  this .'' 

Still,  it  will  be  said  that  the  deposed  priests  must 
have  gladly  accepted  the  most  humble  charge,  and 
that  so,  after  all,  the  punishment  was  turned  into  a 
favor,  and  failed  to  reach  its  end.  History,  however, 
testifies  to  the  contrary.  At  the  first  return  from 
the  captivity  under  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua,  forty-two 
hundred  and  eighty-nine  priests,  and  only  three  hun- 
dred and  forty-one  Levites,  joined  the  expedition. 
At  the  second,  under  Ezra,  only  thirty-eight  Levites 
were  with  much  trouble  collected.  This  shows  how 
even  a  long  exile  had  not  extinguished  the  priestly 
pride  in  those  who  could  no  longer  claim  a  higher 
rank  than  that  of  Levitical  servants.  When  they 
preferred  captivity  to  this  humiliation,  how  can  it  be 
doubted  that  they  considered  it  as  a  punishment 
from  the  outset,  and  that  accordingly  Ezekiel  was 
justified  in  representing  it  as  such  } 

So  much  in  positive  explanation  of  Ezekiel's  state- 
ments.    We  do  not  claim  to  have  relieved  all  difficul- 


Il8  THE   PEXTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

ties,  but  may  console  ourselves  with  the  thought, 
that  even  what  remains  dark  and  mysterious,  stands 
out  in  a  far  more  credible  form  than  the  absurdities 
to  which  the  critical  theory  necessarily  leads.  We 
notice  the  following  points  :  — 

I.  At  the  time  of  the  first  return  from  exile  under 
Zerubbabel  and  Joshua,  the  distinction  of  rank  be- 
tween priests  and  Levites  was  so  firmly  established 
that  nobody  questioned  its  validity  any  longer.  The 
whole  population  of  Jerusalem  consisted,  according  to 
I  Chron.  ix.,  of  Israel,  priests,  and  Levites,  "^j^V^;,  D'^^2, 
d;"!.^.  On  this  all  critics  agree.  But,  on  the  critical 
supposition,  this  universal  recognition  of  the  Aaronic 
prerogative  is  a  most  astonishing  fact.  Before  the 
exile  a  violent  opposition  was  continually  carried  on 
by  the  provincial  priests  against  the  Zadokites  at 
Jerusalem.  No  doubt,  the  Bamoth  priests  argued 
that  the  sons  of  Zadok  possessed  their  exclusive 
rights,  not  dc  jure,  but  de  facto.  They  once  occupied 
the  place,  and  it  was  impossible  to  expel  them. 
This  opposition  continued  during  the  first  part  of 
the  exile.  With  the  abolition  of  the  temple-service, 
the  Zadokites  lost  their  only  stronghold  ;  viz.,  the 
actual  occupancy  of  the  office.  From  that  time  on- 
ward they  were  no  more  than  the  other  Levites, 
like  them  deprived  of  their  sanctuary.  Instead  of 
there  being  reason  for  the  opposition  to  subside, 
and  for  the  superiority  of  the  sons  of  Zadok  to 
gain  silent  recognition,  all  things  seemed  to  work  in 
the  other  direction.  And  still,  a  few  verses  of  the 
prophet  Ezckiel,  in  a  never-realized  vision,  were  suffi- 
cient   to    conjure   the   strife,   and   make   out   of   the 


FjR/ests  axd  levites.  119 

proud  Bamoth  priests,  humble  Levites  and  temple- 
servants  !  Who  would  believe,  that  from  all  the  fea- 
tures in  Ezekiel's  vision,  to  which  the  returning 
exiles  attached  no  importance,  this  single  one  was 
excepted,  and  that  the  slighted  Levites  meekly  suf- 
fered the  exception  to  their  own  degradation  ? 

2.  Among  those  who  returned,  there  were  far 
more  priests  than  Levites.  In  the  first  expedition, 
the  proportion  was  twelve  to  one.  With  Ezra,  only 
thirty-eight  Levites  returned.  How  will  this  agree 
with  the  theory  that  Ezra  was  the  writer  of  the 
Priest  Code }  Surely  the  proportion  between  Le~ 
vites  and  priests  there  assumes  a  totally  different 
character,  and  cannot  be  explained  out  of  the  actual 
state  of  affairs,  immediately  after  the  exile.  Well- 
hausen  assumes  that  the  priesthood  in  Jerusalem 
was  as  numerous  as  that  of  the  Bamoth.  He  con- 
cludes from  the  genealogies  of  the  chronicler,  that 
the  proportion  must  have  been  changed  in  conform- 
ity with  the  statements  of  the  Priest  Code.  This 
change  was  effected  by  Levitizing  strange  families 
of  Nethinim,  singers  and  janizaries.  But  that  the 
Zadokites  were  as  numerous  as  all  the  Bamoth 
priests  together,  is  highly  improbable  ;  for  in  Ezekiel 
they  appear  as  a  small  exception  in  contrast  with  an 
apostate  majority.  Then  the  assumption  that  non- 
Levitical  families  were  Levitized  rests  on  no  his- 
torical basis  whatever.  And  finally  the  critics  must 
not  only  account  for  the  proportion  in  Chronicles, 
but  for  that  in  the  Priest  Code  itself. 

3.  It  is  arbitrary  to  assume  that  only  this  part 
of   Ezekiel's  Thora  had  binding  force,  and  that  all 


120          THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

other  parts  were  utterly  disregarded.  If  the  degra- 
dation of  priests  to  Levites  was  so  persistently 
adhered  to,  it  becomes  incomprehensible  how  after- 
wards a  conscientious  man  like  Ezra  could  substitute 
a  legal  fiction  for  a  divinely  authorized  prophecy, 
of  which  he  admitted,  in  part  at  least,  the  obligatory 
character. 

4.  It  cannot  be  properly  called  a  gradual  restric- 
tion, when  Ezekiel  limits  the  priesthood  to  the  sons 
of  Zadok,  and  the  Priest  Code  confines  it  to  the 
wider  circle  of  Aaron's  descendants.  Thus,  the 
Priest  Code  would  not  only  have  carried  out  one 
part  of  Ezekiel's  statements,  and  disregarded  others, 
but  in  the  same  matter  accepted  one  element,  and 
rejected  the  others.  On  Ezekiel's  authority,  it  con- 
tinues to  keep  down  the  Levites  :  still,  it  goes  back 
on  the  prophet's  limitations,  and  widens  the  circle  of 
favorite  priests.  The  sons  of  Aaron  are  substituted 
for  those  of  Zadok.  This  is  no  restriction,  but  relaxa- 
tion :  God's  words  are  made  of  no  effect.  Doubt- 
less, there  had  been  Aaronites  among  the  Bamoth 
priests.  That  they  were  afterwards  re-admitted  into 
the  priesthood,  wc  can  understand  when  we  recognize 
the  ideal  character  of  Ezekiel's  prophecy ;  but  the 
critics  can  by  no  means  do  so,  who  make  it  the 
basis  of  historical  argumentation. 

All  this  shows  in  what  difficulties  the  critical  theo- 
ries involve  us,  so  far  as  their  so-called  Deuterono- 
mic  period  and  the  subsequent  time  are  concerned. 
But  when  we  go  back  to  the  pre-Deuteronomic  times, 
the  difficulties  are  not  less  numerous,  and  the  pre- 
carious methods  by  which  critics  remove  them  not 


PRIESTS  AND   LEVITES.  121 

less  obvious.  We  can  only  point  out  the  weakest 
spots  of  the  theory  here,  without  laying  claim  to  an 
exhaustive  treatment  of  the  subject. 

I.  The  theory  fails  to  explain  how  the  tribe  of 
Levi  became  the  priestly  tribe  par  excellence.  A 
denial  of  this  fact  is  impossible,  since  the  historical 
testimony  is  too  plain  and  unequivocal.  Throughout 
the  Old  Testament,  Levites  appear  clothed  with 
priestly  authority  (Judg.  xwii.-xx.,  passim  ;  i  Sam.  vi. 
15  ;  2  Sam.  xv.  24;  i  Kings  viii.  4,  xii.  31).  This 
will  never  agree  with  a  theory  that  holds  to  the 
original  universal  right  of  all  Israelites  to  officiate 
as  priests.  And,  apart  from  this,  the  historical  basis 
for  such  a  distinction  as  we  meet  here  is  entirely 
wanting  in  the  critical  scheme.  The  only  possible 
solution  of  the  mystery  of  Levitism  is  that  proposed 
by  the  Priest  Code,  which  says  that  God  separated 
the  tribe  of  Levi  from  the  other  tribes  for  this  pur- 
pose. The  historical  books,  moreover,  testify  to  this 
origin  of  the  distinction,  i  Sam.  ii.  27,  28  ;  Deut, 
xxxiii.  8-1 1  (a  so-called  independent  NorthTsraelitish 
document).  It  is  easy  to  see  how  a  single  family 
could  gradually  form  itself  into  an  hereditary  priest- 
hood ;  but  when,  in  the  time  of  the  Judges,  we  find 
a  whole  tribe  clothed  with  this  prerogative,  we  look 
for  something  more  than  logical  possibilities  in  ex- 
planation. Priestly  tribes  do  not  originate  in  such 
an  incidental  way.  If  Levi  possessed  the  priest- 
hood in  the  days  of  the  Judges,  he  must  have 
possessed  it  long  before,  and  obtained  it  at  a  defi- 
nite point  of  time ;  since  the  elements  out  of  which 
a  scheme  of  development  might  be  constructed  are 


122  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

entirely  wanting.  It  seems  absurd,  in  the  face  of  this 
historical  testimony,  for  critics  to  persistently  deny 
any  connection  of  this  distinction  with  the  facts  that 
both  Moses  and  Aaron  were  Levites,  and  with  the 
momentous  changes  of  the  exodus.  A  historical  ex- 
planation must  be  given  here  ;  and  when  one  that  is 
suitable,  and  accounts  for  all  the  facts,  and  is  verified 
by  history,  presents  itself,  there  is  no  ground  for 
rejecting  it.  And  finally,  even  apart  from  all  this, 
the  fact  that  from  the  earliest  historic  (according  to 
the  critics,  even  prehistoric)  times,  this  distinction 
between  Levites  and  non-Levites  existed,  is  fatal 
to  the  whole  hypothesis  of  gradual  restriction.  It 
proves,  that  in  the  history  of  the  cultus,  there  was  a 
stable  and  fixed  element  from  the  beginning,  which, 
for  this  reason  alone,  cannot  have  arisen  from  un- 
conscious development,  but  must  have  been  based 
on  intentional  appointment. 

It  is  amusing  to  see  how  the  critics  try  to  get 
around  this  fact.  Wellhausen  in  particular  makes 
two  statements  here,  whose  boldness,  bordering  upon 
temerity,  is  evidently  only  a  cover  for  the  weakness 
of  his  position  on  this  important  point.  The  first  is, 
that  no  real  connection  whatever  exists  between  the 
tribe  of  Levi  (early  dissolved  into  the  neighboring 
tribes)  and  the  priestly  caste  afterwards  designated 
by  that  name.  Both  actually  existed,  but  neither  of 
them  had  any  thing  to  do  with  the  other.  The  tribe 
had  long  since  disappeared  when  the  caste  rose  into 
prominence.  All  this  is  based  on  a  critical  inter- 
pretation of  Gen.  xlix.  5-7,  and  clearly  invented  to 
escape  the  consequences  which  this,  as  we  think  un- 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVJTES.  1 23 

avoidable,  combination  involves.  For  the  existence 
of  Levi  as  2,  priestly  tribe  in  the  time  of  Judges,  com- 
pare xvii.  7-9,  xix.  I,  18,  and  afterwards  i  Sam.  vi. 
15,  2  Sam.  vi.  7. 

Wellhausen's  second  statement  is  a  conclusion 
drawn  from  a  series  of  premises,  which  we  quote 
from  him  in  their  logical  order  without  any  further 
comment,  since  they  speak  for  themselves  :  — 

(i)  Jonathan  the  Levite,  who  joined  the  Danites, 
was  a  descendant  of  Moses,  according  to  Judg.  xviii. 

30. 

(2)  The  priestly  family  at  Shiloh  stood  also  in 
genealogical  connection  with  Moses  (!),  according  to 
I  Sam.  ii.  27. 

(3)  There  is  historic  probability  that  the  house  of 
Eli  descended  from  Phinehas,  who  was,  in  the  early 
period  of  the  Judges,  priest  of  the  ark. 

(4)  This  Phinehas,  according  to  Josh.  xxiv.  33 
(Elohistic),  was  a  son  of  Eleazar. 

(5)  Though  tradition  uniformly  claims  Eleazar  for 
a  son  of  Aaron,  it  has  no  right  to  speak  in  this 
matter. 

(6)  Eleazar  does  not  differ  in  its  orthography 
from  Eliezer.  And  Eliezer  was  a  brother  of  Ger- 
shom,  a  son  of  Moses. 

(7)  When  we,  therefore,  read  Eliezer  instead  of 
Eleazar,  and  disregard  tradition,  the  following  facts 
are  established  :  {a)  Jonathan  the  Levite  descended 
from  Moses  ;  {b)  The  priestly  house  at  Shiloh  de- 
scended from  Moses. 

Conclusion  :  All  that  appears  of  an  hereditary 
priesthood  must  be  explained  by  descent  from  Moses. 


124         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

In  his  family  the  priestly  office  was  perpetuated. 
The  priests  at  Dan  and  Shiloh  claimed  Mosaic 
extraction  for  themselves.  All  priests  considered 
Moses,  if  not  as  their  genealogical  ancestor,  still  as 
the  institutor  of  their  guild.  In  Judah  the  guild 
became  a  "gens."  Levite,  at  first  the  name  of  an 
office-bearer,  now  became  a  nonicn  gentile ;  and  thus 
the  Levitical  priesthood  originated. 

2.  Within  the  limits  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  itself, 
however,  a  distinction  is  traceable.  First  we  have 
Deut.  xxxiii.  8-11.  The  passage,  as  a  whole,  applies 
to  the  tribe  of  Levi  (notice  the  transition  to  the 
plural  number  in  ver.  (^  and  10).  In  Moses  and 
Aaron,  Levi  was  proved,  his  fidelity  tested  by  the 
Lord.  But  the  very  fact  that  these  two  were  treated 
as  representatives  of  the  whole  tribe,  shows  that  they 
stood  in  a  certain  representative  relation  to  it,  not 
merely  as  leaders,  but,  in  the  case  of  Aaron,  as  the 
person  in  whom  the  priestly  character  culminated. 
To  say  the  least,  we  have  an  allusion  here  to  the 
peculiar  position  which  the  house  of  Aaron  occupied 
in  the  tribe  of  Levi.  The  same  representative  capa- 
city is  ascribed  to  Aaron  in  the  words  i  Sam.  ii.  27, 
28. 

The  existence  of  an  Aaronic  priesthood  is  con- 
firmed by  abundant  testimony,  both  for  the  beginning 
and  the  close  of  the  period  of  Judges.  The  facts 
are  these  :  {a)  The  tabernacle  was  in  Shiloh  (xviii. 
31)  ;  {b)  It  was  called  ''  tJie  house  of  the  LoRD,"/rt'r 
excellence,  exckrding,  at  least  legally,  all  others  (xix. 
18) ;  (<f)  the  ark  of  the  covenant  was  at  Bethel  (xx.  27) ; 
{d)  Phinehas  the  son  of  Eleazar,  the  son  of  Aaron, 


PRIESTS  AND   LEVITES.  12$ 

"  Stood  before  it  in  those  days."  Here  we  have  one 
legal  sanctuary  in  which  only  the  descendants  of 
Aaron  have  the  right  to  perform  the  highest  func- 
tions, ''to  stand  before  the  ark."  The  First  Book  of 
Samuel  testifies  to  the  same  for  the  close  of  this 
period  (i  Sam.  ii.  14,  22,  24,  30).  Here  the  same 
indisputable  facts  appear,  —  one  tiniversal  sanctuary 
served  by  an  Aaronitic  priesthood,  which  could  only 
be  deposed  by  direct  divine  interference,  and  accord- 
ingly must  have  been  based  likewise  on  direct  divine 
appointment  by  Jehovah  himself. 

It  has  been  claimed  by  Kuenen  and  others,  that 
the  passage,  Deut.  xxxiii.  8-1 1,  implies  the  right  of 
the  whole  tribe  of  Levi  to  the  priestly  prerogatives 
of  bearing  Urim  and  Thummim.  But  apart  from 
the  fact,  that,  in  ver.  8,  9,^  the  singular  is  used,  and 
nothing  prevents  us  from  referring  it  to  Aaron  (or 
ideally  to  the  high-priestly  line  descended  from  him), 
it  involves  no  concession  when  we  say  that  the  ''holy 
one"  is  a  personification  of  the  whole  tribe.  For  in 
this  case  we  could  simply  understand  the  passage  as 
describing  the  prerogatives  of  the  tribe,  without  any 
specification  which  of  them  belonged  to  the  priests 
exclusively,  which  to  the  Levites.  If  it  could  be 
said  that  the  whole  tribe  of  Levi  was  proved  at 
Massah,  and  striven  with  at  the  waters  of  Meribah, 
whilst  only  Aaron  and  Moses  are  meant,  it  surely  is 
not  inconsistent  to  say  that  the  whole  tribe  had 
the  Urim  and  Thummim,  though  in  reality  only  the 
high-priest  could  consult  them. 

The  name  "priests"  occurs  thirty-four  times  in 
the  books  of  Samuel,  sixty  times  in  those  of  Kings, 


126  THE   PENTATEUCIIAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

that  of  Levites  twice  in  Samuel  (i  Sam.  vi.  15,  2 
Sam.  XV.  24),  once  in  Kings  (i  Kings  viii.  4).  This 
preponderant  use  of  the  former  shows  aU'eady  that 
both  terms  were  not  synonymous.  That  the  two 
offices  were  distinct  is  evident  from  the  last  refer- 
ence, I  Kings  viii.  4,  "the  priests  and  the  Levites," 

That  specific  priestly  duties  are  not  particularly 
emphasized  is  easily  accounted  for  when  we  find  that 
in  none  of  the  numerous  passages  where  the  name 
occurs,  was  there  any  occasion  for  it  (see  the  state- 
ment in  Curtiss's  **  Levitical  Priests,"  p.  89).  That 
Levites  are  mentioned  as  handling  the  ark  (i  Sam.  vi. 
15)  does  not  prove  that  all  Levites  were  priests.  All 
we  can  infer,  is  that  in  Beth-shemesh  there  were 
''  Levitical  priests."  If  the  use  of  the  general  term 
"  Levites  "  implies  a  denial  of  their  descent  from 
Aaron,  we  may  just  as  well  infer  from  the  second 
half  of  the  verse,  that  the  "men  of  Beth-shemesh" 
who  offered  and  sacrificed  were  not  Levites.  Beth- 
shemesh  was  a  priestly  city,  so  that  the  priests  must 
have  been  present  at  this  solemn  occasion. 

Of  the  alleged  deviations  in  the  pi-axis  of  that 
time  from  the  Levitical  law,  we  shall  speak  hereafter. 

A  few  remarks  concerning  the  high-priest  may  be 
added.  The  critical  opinion,  that  such  an  imposing 
figure  as  his  was  entirely  unknown  before  the  exile, 
has  been  stated.  We  must  now  examine  the  argu- 
ments adduced  to  sustain  this  statement :  — 

I.  Wellhausen  asserts,  that  in  no  product  of  Old- 
Testament  literature  prior  to  the  Priest  Code  does 
the  term  high -priest  appear  as  a  standing  designa- 


PRIESTS  AND   LEVITES.  12/ 

tion  of  a  peculiar  office,  and  that  persons  to  whom 
the  title  is  given  are  in  other  places  called  simply 
\r\3r\  (the  pidest).  Only  in  the  Priest  Code  and 
thereafter  the  use  of  the  term  becomes  fixed  in  the 
traditional  sense.  At  first  blush,  this  fact  might 
seem  to  corroborate  the  critical  theory  of  a  gradu- 
ally originating  hierarchy.  When  examined  more 
closely,  however,  it  loses  all  value,  for  the  following 
reasons  :  — 

{a)  The  term  "M'rrs  jri3  {JiigJi-pricst)  appears  as  a 
synonyme. 

{b)  The  rare  use  of  the  name  proves  nothing,  since 
it  occurs  only  thrice  in  the  Priest  Code  itself  (Lev. 
xxi.  10,  Num.  XXXV.  25,  28).  In  all  other  instances, 
the  simple  insn  {tJie priest)  is  employed. 

if)  The  chronicler,  who  must  have  attached  special 
importance  to  the  name  if  the  office  was  unprece- 
dented in  importance,  and  required  historical  justifi- 
cation, would  certainly  have  used  the  term  frequently. 
But  the  opposite  is  true.  In  most  cases,  he  desig- 
nates the  high-priest  with  the  simple  jri^n  {the  priest). 
In  Ezra,  Joshua,  the  son  of  Jozadak,  has  no  title  at 
all.  Neither  is  any  found  in  the  genealogy  of  the 
high-priests  (Neh.  xii.  10,  seqq.). 

2.  The  second  argument  is,  that  no  historical  evi- 
dence of  such  an  eminent  position  occupied  by  a  sin- 
gle priest  is  found  anywhere  in  the  historical  books. 
We  answer,  just  as  much  there  as  in  the  Priest 
Code.  When  we  leave  the  period  of  Judges  out  of 
the  account,  do  we  not  find  Eli,  Ahijah,  Ahimelech, 
Abiathar,  Zadok,  Jehoiada,  Hilkiah,  Azariah,  all 
called  absolutely  jn3n,  wearing  the  ephod,  consulting 


128  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

the  Urim  and  Thummini,  evidently  in  great  authority 
and  of  great  influence  with  kings  and  people  alike  ? 
What  more  can  be  demanded  ?  If  an  explicit  and 
accurate  description  of  the  high-priest's  apparel  and 
his  work  w^ere  given,  how  little  would  the  critics 
hesitate  to  declare  it  a  gloss  or  interpolation  of  later 
date  ?  When  assertions  are  made  so  strongly,  and 
theories  constructed  so  boldly,  have  we  not  the  right 
to  demand  at  least  the  evidence  that  somebody  other 
than  the  high-priest  officiated  in  the  Holy  of  holies  ? 
All  that  can  be  adduced  is  i  Sam.  iii.  3,  where  Sam- 
uel is  said  to  have  slept  near  the  ark.  The  passage 
simply  means  that  Samuel  slept  within  the  same  pre- 
cincts where  the  ark  was. 

Even  Wellhausen's  exaggeration  of  the  plenipo- 
tentiary authority  of  the  high-priest  after  the  exile, 
as  described  in  the  Priest  Code,  does  not  entirely 
lack  parallels  in  previous  times.  The  example  of 
Jehoiada  and  the  important  part  acted  by  him  in  the 
revolution  that  placed  Joash  on  the  throne  may  be 
remembered  here.  That  before  the  exile  the  sanc- 
tuary was  a  royal  dependency,  is  only  true  with  refer- 
ence to  the  apostate  idolatrous  Northern  kingdom. 
While  Amaziah  of  Bethel  speaks  of  a  king's  sanc- 
tuary, ^S-p  i:^"np?,  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  is,  without 
exception,  called  "'  t^'np'P,  the  sanctuary  of  Jehovah  ; 
and  the  priests  are  always  "'  'Jn3,  the  priests  of 
Jehovah.  Wellhausen  himself  admits  that  the  Priest 
Code  nowhere  claims  secular  power  for  the  high- 
priest.  Still,  in  the  next  sentence,  he  does  not  hes- 
itate to  make  the  bold  assertion,  that  beside  him, 
no  theocratic  king   is   thinkable.     If   the  former  be 


PRIESTS  AND   LEVITES.  1 29 

true,  we  do  not  see  how  the  latter  can  be  maintained. 
Do  not  the  historical  books  mention  more  than  one 
instance  where  kings  consulted  their  priests,  and 
Urim  and  Thummim  decided  ?  And  to  the  possibil- 
ity of  the  co-existence  of  two  powers,  each  relatively 
sovereign  and  absolute  in  its  own  sphere,  the  co- 
existence for  centuries  of  prophetism  and  the  king- 
dom abundantly  testifies.  The  post-exilic  high-priest 
is  no  more  imposing  figure  beside  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
than  Samuel  beside  Saul. 

3.  The  third  statement  is  that  Deuteronomy  knows 
nothing  of  a  high-priest.  That  the  blessing  of  Moses 
(xxxiii.  8-1 1)  teaches  the  contrary,  we  have  already 
seen  (compare  also  xvii.  12). 


ISO         THE   PEA' TATE CfCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 


CHAPTER    XI. 

LEVITICAL  AND   PRIESTLY   REVENUES. 

CLOSELY  related  to  the  question  just  discussed, 
is  that  concerning  Levitical  and  priestly  rev- 
enues. The  measure  of  priestly  authority  and  in- 
dependence must  necessarily  have  determined  the 
priestly  income.  According  to  Graf  and  Wellhausen, 
the  following  modification  in  the  latter  respect  is 
traceable  in  the  Codes  and  in  the  corresponding  his- 
tory :  — 

A.    The  priest's  part  of  the  sacrifices. 

In  Deuteronomy  :  The  shoulder,  the  two  cheeks, 
the  maw.  From  the  analogy  of  the  Levites,  it  may 
be  supposed  that  priests  shared  in  the  sacrificial 
meals.  Originally  this  was  the  only  thing  which 
the  priests  could  lay  claim  to. 

In  the  Priest  Code  :  Sacrificial  meals  become  sub- 
ordinate. JMincJiaJi  (meat-offering)  and  cJiattatJi  (sin- 
offering)  and  asJiam  (trespass-offering)  (at  least  in 
some  cases)  fell,  as  a  whole,  to  the  priest.  Of  olah 
(burnt-offering),  the  skin  was  for  him.  Of  the  sJicla- 
mini  (peace-offerings),  the  breast  and  the  right  shoul- 
der. Wellhausen  finds  an  approach  towards  cJiattatJi 
and  asJiani  in  the  fines  of  money  mentioned  in  2 
Kings  xii.  i6,  ''the  trespass-money  and  sin-money." 

We  remark  on  this, — 


LEVITICAL   AND  PRIESTLY  REVENUES,       I3I 

1.  The  difference  between  the  Priest  Code  and 
Deuteronomy  as  to  sacrificial  meals  is  entirely  due 
to  the  critics  imposing  on  the  latter  their  self-made 
theory,  that  all  sacrifices  were  originally  nothing  but 
sacrificial  meals.  There  is  no  warrant  for  this  in  the 
legislation,  neither  do  the  historical  books  favor  the 
view. 

2.  All  that  needs  reconciliation  is  the  apparently 
contradictory  statement,  that,  according  to  Deuter- 
onomy, the  priests  obtained  the  shoulder,  two  cheeks, 
and  maw  ;  according  to  the  Priest  Code  of  sJielamim, 
the  breast  and  the  right  shoulder.  Here  every  thing 
will  depend  on  our  interpretation  of  the  passage 
Deut.  xviii.  3.  Two  opinions  can  be  and  have  been 
actually  maintained  concerning  it :  it  has  been  taken 
either  as  a  modification  of  the  Levitical  law,  or  as  a 
supplementary  new  legislation.  The  context  favors 
the  latter,  which  is  also  the  traditional  interpretation 
followed  by  Josephus  and  the  Mishna  and  the  later 
practice.  We  then  understand  the  passage  to  mean, 
that,  of  all  animals  slaughtered  for  food,  these  three 
parts  fell  to  the  priest.  An  additional  reason  why 
we  should  understand  the  verse  of  private  slaugh- 
tering is  found  in  ver.  i,  where  the  income  of  the 
priests,  is  said  to  consist  in  "the  offerings  of  the 
Lord  made  by  fire."  The  word  nc/s^  {fij^e-offering) 
occurs  only  here  in  Deuteronomy,  and  evidently 
refers  back  to  the  Priest  Code,  where  it  is  of  exten- 
sive currency.  This  would  involve  that  Deuter- 
onomy refers  to  the  Levitical  law  for  a  more  definite 
statement  of  the  priest's  share,  and  ver.  3  becomes 
of  necessity  a  new,  supplementary  regulation. 


132  THE  PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

B.  The  tithes. 

According  to  the  early  praxis  (Gen.  xxviii.  22 ; 
Amos  iv.  4,  scqq)  and  Deuteronomy  (xiv.  22-29),  '^^^ 
tithes  are  not  delivered  to  the  priests,  but  are  carried 
to  the  sanctuary  for  the  purpose  of  being  eaten  in 
sacrificial  meals.  Only  corn,  wine,  and  oil  are  tithed 
(ver.  23).  Every  third  year  the  tithe  was  to  be 
distributed  among  those  who  possessed  no  landed 
property.  Wellhausen  sees  in  the  last  appointment 
an  innovation  of  the  Deuteronomist,  made  in  view 
of  the  destruction  of  the  local  sanctuaries. 

In  the  Priest  Code,  the  clcrus  lays  claim  to  the 
whole  tithe.  At  first  the  Deuteronomic  regulations 
were  disregarded.  Afterwards  a  second  tithe  was 
added  in  conformity  with  the  older  and  original 
praxis. 

Another  point  of  discrepancy  is  that  the  Priest 
Code  extends  the  tithe  system  to  cattle  (Lev.  xxvdi. 
32),  and  in  general  to  all  products  of  husbandry. 
Wellhausen  denies  that  this  law  was  ever  enforced. 

1.  The  historical  instances  referred  to  by  Well- 
hausen —  viz.,  that  of  Jacob  and  the  prophecy  of 
Amos — do  not  prove  any  thing:  unless  we  assume 
the  narrative  in  Genesis  to  be  proleptic  and  unhis- 
torical,  what  Jacob  did  will  not  decide  what  was  law 
centuries  thereafter.  And  Amos,  in  the  passage  re- 
ferred to,  does  not  say  what  was  done  with  the  tithes 
brought  to  Bethel  and  Gilgal.  Even  if  we  admit  that 
a  joyful  meal  is  referred  to,  all  may  be  explained  by 
finding  the  so-called  second  tithes  of  Deuteronomy 
mentioned  here.     See,  however,  under  2. 

2.  The  tithes  in  Deuteronomy  do  not  exclude  these 


LEVITICAL   AND   PRIESTLY  REVENUES.        133 

in  Leviticus,  or  the  reverse.  There  is  nothing  incon- 
sistent or  unnatural  in  the  assumption  of  two  tithes, 
the  one  for  the  priests,  the  other  for  the  offerer  him- 
self. As  Wellhausen  himself  reminds  us,  Jewish 
tradition  harmonizes  the  passages  in  this  way.  Or 
if  we  prefer  another  explanation,  which  indeed  seems 
to  be  favored  by  the  analogy  of  the  first-born,  it  may 
be  suggested,  that  the  priests  restored  to  the  offerer 
enough  of  his  tribute  to  enable  him  to  prepare  his 
meal.  From  Deuteronomy  we  get  the  impression 
that  the  cases  of  tithes  and  firstlings  were  of  simi- 
lar character.  Now,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  of 
"second  first-born,"  so  that  the  latter  view  seems  to 
deserve  the  preference. 

3.  The  very  conception  of  tithes  —  i.e.,  of  a  definite 
and  specified  proportion  of  the  produce  — seems  to 
involve  the  idea  of  a  tribute  paid  to  somebody.  If 
they  were  destined  for  sacrificial  meals  exclusively, 
and  had  no  further  destination  than  the  offerer's  en- 
joyment, we  would  not  expect  a  specification  of  the 
amount  to  be  consumed.  This  consideration  favors 
the  view  proposed  under  2  B. 
C.    The  firstlings. 

Here  the  same  principle  is  assumed,  that  all  the 
original  gifts  to  the  Deity  were  destined  for  religious 
meals.  When  Exod.  xxii.  30,  where  the  first-born  are 
commanded  to  be  given  to  Jehovah,  seems  to  con- 
tradict this  assumption,  Wellhausen  appeals  to  Deu- 
teronomy in  proof  that  "to  give  to  Jehovah"  need 
not  mean  "to  pay  to  the  priests,"  but  simply  "to 
eat  before  Jehovah."  It  is  significant,  however,  that 
Deuteronomy  never    uses    the    phrase   *'to   give    to 


134          ^^^   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

Jehovah  "  with  reference  to  the  tithes  to  be  eaten  at 
the  sanctuary.  We  are  not  therefore  warranted  to 
understand  the  passages  Exod.  xxii.  30  and  Deut.  xv. 
19  as  implying  nothing  more  than  that  a  sacrificial 
meal  should  be  eaten.  That  this  is  called  "a  giving 
to  Jehovah"  makes  it  necessary  to  suppose  that  a 
part,  at  least,  fell  to  the  priest.  What  is  intimated 
in  Exodus  is  stated  in  Deuteronomy ;  for  the  eating 
which  is  required  in  xv.  20,  and  the  sacrificing  which 
is  forbidden  in  ver.  21,  are  not  synonymous,  but  stand 
in  juxtaposition,  so  that  a  twofold  use  of  the  first- 
lings is  also  implied  here.  Thus  understood,  both 
the  Covenant-law  and  Deuteronomy  will  bear  out 
the  fact,  that  the  priest  received  the  firstlings,  but 
restored  so  much  of  them  to  the  offerer  as  to  enable 
him  to  prepare  a  meal.  And  this  agrees  fully  with 
what  the  Priest  Code  teaches.  Num.  xviii.  15. 

D.  The  Levitical  cities. 

Num.  XXXV.  assigns'  forty-eight  cities  to  the  Le- 
vites,  of  which  thirteen  fell  to  the  priests.  That  the 
right  of  full  possession  is  intended,  admits  of  no 
doubt.  Compare  the  execution  of  the  command, 
Josh.  xxi.  In  addition  to  each  city,  a  square  of  two 
thousand  cubits  was  set  apart,  to  serve  for  suburbs 
or  commons. 

I.  The  principal  objection  raised  by  critics  against 
these  appointments  regards  the  practical  impossi- 
bility of  carrying  them  out.  So  first  Gramberg,  and 
afterwards  Graf  and  Wellhausen.  The  latter  says, 
"  The  directions  to  set  apart  a  common  of  two  thou- 
sand cubits  square  around  the  cities  (in  which  the 
latter  are   considered   as   mere   points),  to    serve    as 


LEVI  TIC  A  L   AND   PRIESTLY  REVENUES.        I  35 

pasture-ground  for  the  Levites,  could  perhaps  be  exe- 
cuted in  a  South-Russian  steppe,  or  in  the  case  of 
newly  built  cities  in  the  West  of  North  America,  but 
by  no  means  in  mountainous  Palestine,  where  such 
a  geometrical  space  is  nowhere  to  be  found,"  etc. 

2.  Historical  traces  of  the  existence  of  these  Le- 
vitical  cities  do  not  appear  outside  of  the  Book  of 
Joshua.  A  considerable  number  of  them  was  still 
in  the  possession  of  the  Canaanites  during  the  period 
of  Judges  and  the  early  kings  ;  e.g.,  Gibeon,  Gezer, 
Taanach,  Shechem. 

3.  In  the  Deuteronomic  time  the  Levites  lived 
scattered  over  all  Judah  :  each  place  had  its  own,  no- 
where did  they  live  together  in  a  compact  mass. 

4.  Even  after  the  exile  the  situation  of  the  Levites 
was  not  materially  changed.  The  execution  of  this 
command  was  deferred  until  Messianic  days :  indeed, 
it  did  not  lie  within  the  compass  of  human  power, 
and  cannot  have  been  demanded  in  full  earnest  by 
the  Priest  Code  itself. 

5.  The  first  historical  germs  of  the  whole  concep- 
tion must  be  sought  in  the  cities  of  asylum  of  Deu- 
teronomy. All  altars  were  originally  asyla.  But 
whilst  the  former  were  destroyed  by  Josiah's  reform, 
of  course  the  need  of  the  latter  remained,  and  was 
provided  for  by  the  appointment  of  these  cities  of 
refuge.  The  truth  is,  that  all  of  them  were  priestly 
or  Levitical  cities,  moreover  famous  seats  of  the  old 
cultus.  Hence  the  suggestion,  that  the  law  of  the 
Priest  Code  arose  from  nothing  but  the  reminis- 
cences of  the  pre-exilic  plurality  of  places  of  worship. 
The  idea  of  altar  and  j^riesthood  was  associated  with 


136         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

many  a  city,  and  found  natural  expression  in  declar- 
ing the  forty-eight  places  to  have  been  the  peculiar 
inheritance  of  the  clems  ever  since  the  Mosaic  times. 
Let  us  briefly  see  what  these  serious  charges 
amount  to.  The  impracticability  of  the  command 
might  be  considerably  less  than  Wellhausen  imagines. 
His  objection,  that  the  arithmetical  precision  with 
which  every  thing  is  described  proves  an  ideal  char- 
acter, falls  immediately  away  as  soon  as  we  consider 
the  numbers  given  as  indicating  the  average  allow- 
ance to  be  made  for  pasture-ground,  nothing  more 
than  a  general  limit,  a  minimum  which  might  be 
modified  according  to  the  circumstances  or  the  geo- 
graphical condition  of  the  country.  That  the  cities 
are  considered  as  a  point  is  true,  if  we  take  the  point, 
not  in  its  geometrical  sense,  but  as  having  the  size  of 
each  individual  city.  If  Wellhausen  means  that  the 
square  of  two  thousand  cubits  included  the  city,  there 
is  nothing  in  the  text  to  justify  this  view.  The  com- 
parison with  newly  built  cities  is  not  entirely  out  of 
place  ;  since  in  the  conquest  of  Canaan  many  a  city 
must  have  been  destroyed,  and  a  clean  sweep  made. 
That  Levitical  cities  remained  in  possession  of  the 
Canaanites  is  nothing  remarkable,  and  may  at  the 
same  time  account  for  the  statement  of  Deuteronomy 
and  later  historical  facts,  which  presuppose  a  partial 
scattering  of  the  Levites  all  over  the  country.  Well- 
hausen's  remark,  that  no  traces  of  the  existence  of 
Levitical  cities  appear  in  subsequent  time,  is  most 
positively  untrue.  The  fact  is,  that  some  very  strik- 
ing coincidences  make  the  existence  of  this  law 
highly   probable.     \Vc    refer   to    what    happened    in 


LEVITICAL   AND   PRIESTLY  REVENUES.        I37 

Beth-shemesh  ;  to  the  fact  that  Jeremiah,  of  priestly 
descent,  was  born  in  Anathoth  ;  that  Abiathar,  when 
dismissed  by  Solomon,  was  told  to  go  to  Anathoth  ; 
that  Nob  was  a  residence  of  priests.  To  see  in  the 
mention  of  all  these  cities  in  Joshua,  not  the  origin 
of  their  priestly  character,  but  simply  the  reminis- 
cence of  it,  is  possible  indeed  ;  but  the  critics  should 
never  forget  that  such  statements  are  mere  applica- 
tions, not  proofs,  of  their  theory.  That,  according  to 
Deuteronomy,  the  Levites  lived  scattered  all  over  the 
country,  may  be  attributed  to  various  causes.  If  we 
could  grant  that  the  critical  opinion  of  the  late  origin 
of  the  book  was  true,  the  natural  explanation  would 
be,  that  at  the  schism  under  Jeroboam  I.  the  Levites 
of  the  Northern  kingdom  emigrated  to  Judah.  This 
shows,  however,  from  their  own  premises,  that  the 
critics  have  no  right  to  conclude  the  non-existence 
of  the  law.  But  it  will  suffice  to  assume  only  so 
much  prophetical  foresight  in  Moses  as  enabled  him 
to  see  that  the  Levites  might  not  immediately  or 
perpetually  enjoy  the  full  possession  of  their  patri- 
mony. For  a  believer  in  prophecy,  it  is  not  impos- 
sible to  suppose  that  Moses,  under  the  inspiration  of 
God's  spirit,  penetrated  the  future,  even  so  far  as  to 
take  in  the  time  of  Jeroboam  and  Josiah.  Deuteron- 
omy seems  to  allude  to  the  Levitical  cities  in  chap, 
xviii.  8^  :  ''  beside  that  which  cometh  of  the  sale  of 
his  patrimony"  (compare  Keil  /;/  loco,  from  whom 
Schultz  differs).  If  it  must  be  admitted  that  these 
laws  did  not  go  into  operation  after  the  exile,  what 
can  hinder  us  from  putting  them  back  into  the 
Mosaic   time,  and   assuming   that    they  were    never 


138         THE  PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

fully  lived  up  to  for  the  same  reasons  that  prevented 
their  execution  after  the  exile  ?  As  to  ineffective- 
ness, the  case  stands  alike ;  and  as  to  historical 
inducements  to  frame  such  regulations,  the  Mosaic 
period  certainly  offered  more  of  them  than  the  time 
of  Ezra.  The  latter  must  have  known  that  the  law- 
was  impracticable  :  the  Israelites  in  the  desert  need 
not.  The  analogy  with  the  cities  of  refuge  in  Deu- 
teronomy and  the  division  of  the  land  in  Ezekiel  is 
so  far-fetched,  and  there  are  so  many  discrepancies 
between  the  latter  and  the  Priest  Code,  that  it  is 
impossible  to  assume  any  other  real  connection,  than 
that  the  prophet  in  a  free  manner  reproduced  what 
was  known  to  him  from  the  Priest  Code.  That  such 
an  institution  as  the  cities  of  refuge  could  not  have 
taken  its  rise  in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  but  must  at  the 
very  least  be  anterior  to  the  establishment  of  the 
kingdom,  is  strongly  argued  by  Dr.  A.  P.  Bissell,  in 
''The  Law  of  Asylum  in  Israel,"  Leipzig,  1884. 


FEASTS.  139 


CHAPTER    XII. 

FEASTS. 

THE  last  and  most  important  point  in  regard  to 
which  the  critics  have  attempted  to  point  out  a 
modification  in  \.\i^  praxis,  followed  by  a  correspond- 
ing development  in  the  laws,  is  that  of  the  feasts. 
In  the  Jehovistic-Deuteronomic  part  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, a  cycle  of  three  feasts  is  known  (Exod.  xxiii., 
xxxiv.  ;  Deut.  xvi.) ;  and  all  these  are  designated  by  the 
name  Jn  {pilgrimage  festival)  :  Mazzoth,  unleavened 
bread;  Kazir,  harvest  (Shabuoth,  weeks) ;  and  Asiph, 
ingathering  (Succoth,  tabernacles).  Whilst,  with  re- 
spect to  the  two  last-mentioned,  there  is  perfect 
agreement  between  the  Jehovist  and  Deuteronomy, 
a  difference  appears  with  reference  to  the  first. 
Exod.  xxxiv.  connects  the  offering  of  firstlings  with 
Mazzoth :  Deuteronomy  uses  the  name  Pesach  {pass- 
over)  for  the  first  time.  The  inference  is,  that  Pesach 
and  Mazzoth  are  distinct  and  originally  independent 
from  each  other,  the  latter  by  far  the  elder  of  the 
two,  constituting  a  triad  with  Kazir  and  Asiph.  All 
three  are  essentially  agrarian  feasts.  Mazzoth  indi- 
cates the  beginning  of  harvest ;  and  accordingly  a 
sheaf  is  offered  to  Jahveh,  as  the  first  produce  of 
the  ground  in  its  most  simple  form.     This  is  also 


I40         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

alleged  to  be  the  original  meaning  of  Mazzoth  ;  viz., 
that  of  hastily  prepared,  inartificial  bread,  symboliz- 
ing the  new,  fresh  harvest,  which  men  do  not  take 
time  carefully  to  leaven,  to  knead,  and  to  bake  (Well- 
hausen).  Kazir  closes  the  grain-harvest,  to  which  the 
loaves  of  wheat  bread  correspond.  Finally,  Asiph 
celebrates  the  autumnal  ingathering  of  oil  and  wine ; 
and  here  the  agrarian  character  has  been  preserved 
by  dwelling  in  booths  of  branches,  as  is  indicated  by 
the  name  Succoth. 

A  second  point,  in  which  Deuteronomy  shows  an 
advance  upon  the  Covenant-law,  is  the  more  definite 
specification  of  the  time  at  which  the  feasts  are  to 
be  held.  Exod.  xxiii.  and  xxxiv.  prescribe  in  vague 
and  general  terms,  Mazzoth  in  the  month  Abib,  Kazir 
when  the  wheat  is  cut,  Asiph  when  the  ingathering 
of  fruits  is  ended.  The  centralization  of  the  cultus 
made  a  more  fixed  date  necessary,  as  is  found  in  the 
expressions,  ''The  first  day  at  even,"  xvi.  4;  "At 
even,  at  the  going  down  of  the  sun,"  ver.  6  ;  ''Thou 
shalt  turn  in  the  morning,  and  go  unto  thy  tents," 
ver.  7  ;  "  Seven  weeks  shalt  thou  number,"  ver.  9  ; 
"The  feast  of  tabernacles  seven  days,"  ver.  13. 

Thirdly,  the  quantity  of  the  gifts  to  be  brought 
to  the  feasts  was  at  first  left  to  the  choice  of  the  in- 
dividual, afterwards  settled  more  definitely.  Exodus 
does  not  require  any  precise  amount  of  the  firstlings 
or  of  the  produce  of  the  field  :  Deuteronomy  requires 
the  tithe.  In  case  of  the  first-born,  of  course,  no 
determination  was  needed. 

Fourthly,  in  accordance  with  its  centralizing  ten- 
dency, Deuteronomy  commands  that  all  feasts  shall 


FEASTS.  I4T 

be  kept  at  the  sanctuary  of  Jehovah.  On  the  whole, 
the  primitive  cycle  of  feasts  is  said  to  have  a  purely 
agricultural  basis  :  it  is  only  in  Deuteronomy  that 
the  first  modest  traces  may  be  seen  of  that  substitut- 
ing history  for  nature,  of  which  the  later  legislation 
is  so  fruitful. 

The  peculiarities  and  innovations  of  the  Priest 
Code  are  by  Wellhausen  stated  under  the  following- 
heads  :  — 

1.  The  sacrificial  meals  of  the  feasts  have  given 
place  to  minutely  prescribed  burnt-  and  sin-offerings 
(Num.  xxviii.). 

2.  The  aparchae  {firstfrnits  and  firstlings)  are  sep- 
arated from  the  feasts  :  they  appear  no  longer  as 
offerings,  but  have  been  transformed  into  priestly 
revenues. 

3.  The  date  of  the  harvest-feasts  is  now  definitely 
settled,  —  Mazzoth  on  the  fifteenth  of  the  first  month, 
Succoth  on  the  fifteenth  of  the  seventh  month,  Sha- 
buoth  seven  weeks  after  Mazzoth.  This  shows  that 
they  have  ceased  to  be  purely  agrarian  feasts,  which, 
as  such,  could  never  have  been  bound  to  a  fixed  date, 
but  were  dependent  on  the  ripeness  of  the  harvest. 

4.  The  historical  interpretation  of  the  feasts  is  car- 
ried to  the  extreme.  Succoth  becomes  a  memorial 
of  the  dwelling  in  tents  in  the  desert.  Passover  is 
not  merely  made  a  sacrament,  but  a  sort  of  mass  :  it 
was  celebrated,  according  to  the  Priest  Code,  in  the 
night  of  the  exodus,  and  effected  the  salvation  of 
Israel.  In  the  same  manner,  the  keeping  of  Mazzoth 
is  already  commanded  before  the  exodus.  Only  on 
Shabuoth  no  historical  interpretation  is  imposed. 


142         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES   MOSAIC. 

5.  The  Priest  Code  requires  that  all  feasts  from 
beginning  to  end  shall  be  kept  at  Jerusalem,  and  in 
this  respect  advances  upon  Deuteronomy.  For  by 
requiring  a  Mikra  Kodesh  (holy  convocation)  on  the 
seventh  day  of  Mazzoth,  visitors  who  did  not  live 
in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  Jerusalem  were 
under  the  necessity  of  remaining  there  through  the 
whole  feast-week.  To  Succoth  the  Priest  Code  adds 
an  eighth  day.  In  Ezekiel,  both  Mazzoth  and  Suc- 
coth are  still  limited  to  seven  days  each  (chap.  xlv.). 

6.  The  Priest  Code  has  added  two  new  feasts 
to  the  original  cycle  of  three  ;  viz.,  the  feast  of 
Teruah  (trumpets),  on  the  first  of  the  seventh  month, 
and  the  Yom  Kippurim  (Day  of  Atonement),  on 
the  tenth  of  the  same  month.  During  the  exile  the 
ecclesiastical  new  year  began  on  the  tenth  of  the 
seventh  month.  The  Day  of  Atonement  was  not 
observed  before  the  year  444  B.C.,  or  even  later,  and 
had  its  origin  in  the  commemoration  of  the  days  of 
Jerusalem's  destruction  during  the  exile  by  fasting. 
Ezekiel  mentions  two  days  of  reconciliation,  the  one 
falling  on  the  new  moon  of  the  seventh  month  (xlv. 
20,  according  to  the  Septuagint).  Afterwards  the 
Priest  Code  reversed  the  order  of  the  new  year  and 
Kippurim  by  putting  the  latter  on  the  tenth,  and  the 
former  on  the  first,  day  of  the  seventh  month. 

7.  The  law  of  the  Sabbath-year  is  modified  by 
the  Priest  Code  in  two  particulars  :  {a)  What  was 
a  relative  year  in  Exod.  xxiii.  10,  11,  is  now  abso- 
lutely fixed  ;  all  fields  have  to  rest  in  the  same  year. 
{b^  Not  only  reaping,  but  also  sowing,  is  to  be  sus- 
pended. The  Year  of  Jubilee  is  entirely  an  inven- 
tion of  the  Priest  Code. 


FEASTS.  143 

The  first  attempt  to  establish  the  theory  just 
stated,  occupies  itself  with  pointing  out  the  natural- 
istic origin  of  the  triad  of  main  feasts.  Wellhausen 
takes  great  pains  to  claim  for  all  of  them  a  purely 
agricultural  basis.  The  Trptorov  xj/^vho^  of  his  reasoning 
consists  in  the  assumption  that  this  naturalistic 
basis  would  exclude  an  additional  historical  sanction 
or  confirmation.  We  grant  that  its  relation  to  the 
harvest  was  probably  the  only  significance  of  Pente- 
cost, and  admit  that  such  a  relation  exists  with  re- 
gard to  Mazzoth  and  Succoth,  but  do  not  bind  our- 
selves by  this  concession  to  the  naturalistic  denial 
of  all  other  accessary  historical  associations. 

More  than  this.  We  maintain  that  the  imposition 
of  this  theory,  on  what  the  critics  claim  to  be  the 
earliest  legislation  and  the  earliest  history,  cannot  be 
accomplished  without  the  most  arbitrary  methods  of 
reconstructing  history  and  of  misinterpreting  Scrip- 
ture. This  admits  of  demonstration  in  detail.  We 
hope  to  show  that  the  historical  origin  of  the  feasts, 
in  addition  to  their  natural  basis,  is  not  only  possible, 
but  absolutely  required  by  all  accessible  evidence. 
What  falls  outside  of  this,  is,  of  course,  pure  hypoth- 
esis. 

Let  us  examine  the  primitive  laws.  For  Pente- 
cost, a  historical  basis  is  nowhere  claimed.  For  Suc- 
coth, only  in  the  Priest  Code  (Lev.  xxiii.  43).  For 
Mazzoth  and  Pesach  (Passover),  however,  in  all  the 
laws  without  a  single  exception:  both  are  ahvays 
brought  in  connection  with  the  exodus  (Exod.  xxiii., 
xxxiv.  ;  Deut.  xvi.).  This  fact  is  a  serious  obstacle 
in  the  way  of  Wellhausen's    naturalizing   presenta- 


144         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

tions.  It  is  wonderful  how  innocently  he  tries  to 
remove  it,  as  if  a  mere  incidental  feature,  and  not  a 
vital  principle,  were  at  stake.  He  remarks  that  the 
cycle  presupposes  the  original  similarity  of  all  its 
members.  Hence,  if  Kazir  and  Asiph  are  harvest- 
feasts,  Mazzoth  cannot  have  been  a  historical  one. 
This  critical  '^cannot''  is  weighty  enough  in  Well- 
hausen's  view  to  set  aside  the  explicit  testimony  of 
both  the  Covenant-law  and  Deuteronomy.  A  sem- 
blance, indeed,  of  proof  is  adduced:  "The  feast 
proper  is  not  called  Hag-ha-Pesach,  but  Hag-ha-]\Iaz- 
zoth  :  only  the  latter  stands  co-ordinate  with  both 
the  other  harvest-feasts.  .  .  .  For  a  companion  with 
Kazir  and  Asiph,  only  Mazzoth  can  come  under  con- 
sideration." 

It  is  difficult  to  see  what  is  gained  by  this  violent 
separation  of  Mazzoth  from  Pesach.  But  let  us  sup- 
pose for  a  moment  that  the  two  could  be  severed. 
Would  this  alter  the  case  with  regard  to  Mazzoth  } 
Not  in  the  least ;  for  in  the  Covenant-law  the  exodus 
is  twice  mentioned  as  the  historical  ground  of  Maz- 
zoth,  and  not  of  PesacJi.  Wellhausen's  language  con- 
veys the  erroneous  impression  that  the  primitive 
laws  brought  only  Pesach  in  connection  with  the 
exodus.  The  opposite  is  true  :  the  passages  in  Exod. 
xxiii.  and  xxxiv.  do  not  so  much  as  mention  Pesach  ; 
and  in  Deuteronomy,  though  Pesach  is  made  more 
prominent  than  Mazzoth,  still  the  great  fact  of  deliv- 
erance from  Egypt  is  almost  exclusively  combined 
with  the  latter. 

Let  us  now  consider  in  how  far  the  severance  of 
Pesach  and  Mazzoth  can  be  justified.     In  Exod.  xxiii. 


FEASTS.  145 

15  no  allusion  to  the  Passover  appears.  But  in  ver. 
18  it  is  said,  ''Thou  shalt  not  offer  the  blood  of  my 
sacrifice  with  leavened  bread  ;  neither  shall  the  fat  of 
my  sacrifice  remain  until  the  morning."  We  do  not 
know  how  Wellhausen,  understands  this  verse,  but  to 
us  every  other  explanation  but  that  which  refers  it 
to  the  Passover-lamb  seems  unnatural :  ver.  18  is  evi- 
dently an  appendix  to  ver.  15  (Mazzoth),  ver.  19=^  to 
ver.  16  ('Kazir),  ver.  19^  to  ver.  16^  (Asiph).  So 
Hengstenberg,  Bertheau,  Knobel,  Bachmann,  Keil. 
The  passage  xxxiv.  25  is  parallel.  Moreover,  in 
Exod.  xxxiv.  19,  20,  the  command  to  give  the  male 
first-born  of  men  and  animals  to  Jehovah  is  immedi- 
ately subjoined  to  the  Mazzoth-law.  The  offering  of 
the  first-born  belongs  to  Pesach,  so  that  also  in  this 
passage  the  two  appear  inseparably  connected.  Deu- 
teronomy makes  Mazzoth  already  subordinate  to  Pe- 
sach. So  they  must  have  co-existed  already  for  a 
considerable  time,  and  not  only  this,  but  have  been 
intimately  connected. 

We  take  it  to  be  established  beyond  doubt,  that, 
according  to  the  Covenant-law  and  Deuteronomy,  the 
institution  of  Mazzoth  rested  on  a  divine  act  of  deliv- 
erance ;  that,  though  in  part  an  agricultural  feast,  it 
had  at  the  same  time  a  national  and  historic  charac- 
ter. If,  however,  Pesach  is  so  closely  allied  to  Maz- 
zoth, that  the  two  always  appear  together,  it  would 
seem  fair  to  infer  the  historical  basis  of  the  latter 
from  that  of  the  former. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  question  of  Pesach  is  one 
of  the  most  intricate  and  difficult  problems  which 
the  newer  criticism  will  have  to  solve.     The  numer- 


146         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

ous  hypotheses  proposed  in  explanation  of  this 
mystery  may  help  us  to  form  an  estimate  of  the 
hopelessness  of  the  task.  We  cannot  enter  into  a 
discussion  of  all  these,  for  the  simple  reason,  that 
none  of  them  rests  on  either  exegetical  or  historical 
warrant,  or  even  claims  to  rest  on  such  ;  they  are 
hypotheses  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word,  products 
of  the  critical  imagination :  and  we  shall  confine 
ourselves  to  scriptural  facts. 

The  name  even  is  not  clear.  No  satisfactory  ety- 
mology, besides  the  scriptural  one,  has  as  yet  been 
given.  Wellhausen  says,  "  Essentially  Pesach  is  the 
feast  of  the  offering  of  the  first-born."  The  natural 
inference  would  seem  to  be,  that  this  definition  con- 
firms our  view  of  the  historical  origin  of  the  feast. 
For  the  right  of  Jehovah  to  Israel's  first-born  is,  so 
far  as  we  know,  everywhere  founded  on  his  sparing 
them  when  he  slew  the  first-born  of  the  Egyptians. 
This  is  not  only  the  case  in  the  Priest  Code,  but 
also  in  the  Jehovist  (Exod.  xiii.  11,  scqq).  Well- 
hausen is  candid  enough  to  admit  this.  How,  then, 
does  he  avoid  the  inference  fatal  to  his  theory  1  His 
first  recourse  is  to  the  dissecting-knife  of  analytical 
criticism.  He  declares  that  (also  on  other  grounds) 
the  whole  section  (xiii.  1-16)  does  not  belong  to  the 
sources  of  the  Jehovist,  but  w^as  added  by  a  Deu- 
teronomic  redactor.  We  cannot  follow  him  into  this 
labyrinth  of  divisive  operations.  But  let  us  suppose 
that  the  passage  be  Deuteronomic.  It  is  in  any  case, 
together  with  Deut.  xvi.,  according  to  Wellhausen's 
own  view,  the  first  explicit  statement  concerning  Pe- 
sach.    As  such,  it  has  the  right  to  be   heard  as  the 


FEASTS.  147 

oldest  historical  testimony  accessible.  That  the 
critics  refuse  to  recognize  the  historic  credibility  of 
Deuteronomy,  we  cannot  help.  Still,  a  reason  must 
be  given  why  the  Deuteronomist,  seeking  an  histori- 
cal ground  for  the  origin  of  Pesach,  hit  exactly  upon 
this  point,  Israel's  exodus  from  Egypt. 

Wellhausen  helps  himself  by  the  following  hypoth- 
esis :  The  exodus  occurred,  according  to  early  tradi- 
tion, about  the  time  of  the  ancient  spring-festival. 
Exod.  V.  I,  Moses  and  Aaron  ask  from  Pharaoh,  *'  Let 
my  people  go,  that  they  may  hold  a  feast  unto  me  in 
the  wilderness."  This  is  made  to  prove  that  the  feast 
existed  before  the  historical  occasion  assigned  to  it 
in  the  law.  Also  chap.  xii.  ver.  21  is  quoted,  where 
Moses  addresses  the  elders  of  Israel  with  the  words, 
''  Kill  the  Passover."  The  feast  was  the  occasion  of 
the  exodus.  Afterwards  the  order  was  reversed ;  and 
after  the  feast  had  thus  been  supplied  with  an  his- 
torical basis,  its  main  and  original  feature,  the  offer- 
ing of  the  first-born,  required  an  explanation  also. 
This  was  found  in  the  narrative  of  God's  slaying 
the  first-born  of  Egypt.  And  he  adds,  "  Unless  we 
assume  the  existence  of  the  custom  to  offer  the  first- 
born, the  narrative  becomes  unexplainable,  and  no 
reason  is  given  why  the  pestilence  made  such  a 
strange  selection." 

That  this  is  unscrupulously  distorting  facts  to  suit 
a  theory,  the  critic  seems  not  to  feel.  Not  a  parti- 
cle of  evidence,  either  in  law  or  in  history,  can  be 
claimed  to  favor  this  hypothesis.  That  it  is  the 
only  thing  ''which  suits  the  nature  of  the  case,"  is 
true,  if  the  transactions  were  purely  natural.     This 


148         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

is  exactly  what  we  deny,  the  very  point  at  issue  :  to 
assume  it,  is  openly  begging  the  question.  To  those 
who  believe  in  the  supernatural  element  in  history, 
it  may  be  somewhat  easier  than  for  Wellhausen  to 
explain  why  the  pestilence  made  such  a  strange  selec- 
tion among  the  Egyptians. 

The  two  passages  quoted  from  Exodus  decide  noth- 
ing. Exod.  V.  I  only  proves  that  the  Israelites  de- 
sired to  keep  a  feast.  That  it  was  an  annually 
recurring  feast,  is  not  stated,  and  rather  doubtful. 
But  if  we  grant  that  a  spring-festival  was  observed, 
this  cannot  warrant  Wellhausen  in  discarding  all  ad- 
ditional historical  explanation.  That  Moses  said  to 
the  elders,  "  Kill  tJic  Passover,"  is  due  to  the  writer 
unconsciously  putting  a  term  familiar  to  himself  into 
the  mouth  of  the  speaker.  Of  course,  the  narrative 
does  not  pretend  to  give  the  ipsissiina  verba  of  Moses' 
communication  to  the  elders. 

After  all,  the  former  of  these  passages  would 
make  strongly  against  Wellhausen's  theory  of  Maz- 
zoth  being  an  agricultural  feast.  The  Israelites  de- 
sired to  hold  a  festival  in  the  desert.  And  a  rural 
festival  in  the  wilderness  is  a  downright  absurdity. 
How  impossible  it  is  to  put  Mazzoth  on  a  par  with 
Kazir  and  Asiph,  is  seen  from  two  other  features  : 
{a)  Mazzoth  occupied  seven  days,  Kazir  only  one  : 
had  both  been  rural  festivals,  the  one  to  celebrate 
the  beginning,  the  other  the  completion,  of  harvest, 
we  would  expect  the  latter  to  have  lasted  the  longer. 
{b)  Wellhausen's  explanation  touching  the  origin  of 
eating  unleavened  bread,  leaves  out  of  view  that  all 
leaven  had  to  be  removed  out  of  the  houses.     How 


FEASTS.  l^f) 

this  feature  will  ever  be  explained  on  naturalistic 
principles,  it  is  not  easy  to  determine. 

Another  consideration  would  be  enough  to  dis- 
prove the  naturalistic  element,  which  all  newer  hy- 
potheses with  regard  to  Pesach  have  in  common  ; 
viz.,  that  it  was  simjDly  a  sacrificial  feast,  on  which 
the  first-born,  either  in  reality  or  by  substitution, 
were  offered  to  God.  We  refer  to  the  fact,  that,  in 
connection  with  it,  the  male  first-born  of  ihcji  are 
claimed  for  Jehovah.  If  the  offering  of  the  first- 
born was  the  occasion  of  a  spring-feast,  and  this  the 
origin  of  Pesach,  we  must  logically  infer  that  at  this 
spring-festival  also  human  sacrifices  were  brought. 
The  two  commands  stand  on  a  par,  and  logic  is 
severe.  It  is  impossible  to  see  how  the  idea  of  offer- 
ing human  first-born  could  ever  arise  in  connection 
with  Pesach,  at  so  early  a  time  that  the  Jehovist 
already  combines  the  two,  unless  they  were  actually 
combined.  We  must,  then,  assume  that  this  primi- 
tive prehistoric  rural  feast  witnessed  the  terrible 
scenes  of  manslaughter  in  honor  of  the  Deity.  In 
spite  of  all  his  naturalism,  Wellhausen  is  not  in- 
clined to  follow  others,  who  actually  hold  that  human 
sacrifices  were  more  or  less  common  among  the 
Israelites.  He  is  candid  enough  to  admit,  that  only 
a  few  examples  of  such  a  horrible  practice  are  found, 
and  that  it  appears  as  throughout  voluntary  and  ex- 
ceptional. Not  until  shortly  before  the  exile  did  the' 
burning  of  children  become  more  customary. 

It  must  be  necessary  to  account  for  the  combina- 
tion in  some  other  way.  We  look  for  this  in  vain. 
All  that  Wellhausen  gives  us  is   contained  in  this 


150         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

sentence :  "■  When  the  human  first-born  are  also 
claimed,  this  is  nothing  but  a  later  generalization." 
It  will  not  escape  the  thoughtful  reader,  that  this  is 
nothing  but  a  groundless  assertion.  And,  at  any 
rate,  the  generalization  needs  an  explanation  just  as 
much  as  the  practice. 

/  Under  these  circumstances,  where  all  the  evidence 
\  is  on  our  side,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  critics  are 
obliged  to  support  one  assumption  by  another,  we 
must  protest  against  all  naturalistic  explanations  of 
Pesach  which  make  any  higher  pretensions  than  that 
of  being  logically  possible.  The  old  historical  view, 
given  by  the  Bible  in  Exod  xii.,  accounts  fully  for 
all  the  facts,  gives  a  plausible  etymology  of  the 
name,  is  not  half  so  one-sided  as  that  of  the  critics, 
since  it  does  not  exclude  the  connection  between 
Passover  and  the  incipient  harvest. 

That  neither  the  Covenant-law  nor  Deuteronomy 
alludes  to  the  historical  associations  of  Succoth,  can- 
not be  made  to  speak  for  a  later  origin  of  this 
historical  idea.  Even  in  the  Priest  Code  these  his- 
torical associations  are  not  made  prominent.  The 
whole  tenor  of  the  law.  Lev.  xxiii.  39-43,  shows  that 
the  main  end  of  the  feast  was  to  celebrate  the 
autumnal  ingathering  of  fruit.  The  customary  dwell- 
ing in  booths  in  memory  of  the  desert -journey  was 
secondary,  and  is  only  incidentally  referred  to  at  the 
end  in  a  single  verse.  And  here  also  it  appears 
what  the  aro^mnentiim  e  silentio  is  worth.  The  re- 
markable  fact  is,  that  both  the  Jehovist  and  Deu- 
teronomist  place  Pesach  or  Mazzoth  m  a  historical 
light ;  the  Priest  Code,  on  the  contrary,  does  not  so 


FEASTS.  1 5  I 

much  as  allude  to  its  historical  character  in  Lev. 
xxiii.,  —  in  both  cases,  exactly  the  opposite  of  what 
the  critical  theory  would  lead  us  to  expect.  Surely, 
no  critic  would  infer  from  this  silence  that  the  a2:ri- 
cultural  significance  of  Mazzoth  was  unknown  to 
the  Jehovist  and  the  Deuteronomist.  Just  as  little 
need  we  infer  from  their  silence  as  to  the  historical 
character  of  Succoth,  that  this  must  have  been  the 
fruit  of  a  later  development. 

We  turn  to  Deuteronomy,  and  ask  in  what  the 
pretended  advance  upon  the  Covenant-law  consists. 
[The  dates  of  the  feasts  are  said  to  have  been  more 
definitely  fixed,  in  accordance  with  the  centralization 
of  the  cultus.  The  truth  is,  that  no  dates  are  given 
besides  a  single  relative  one ;  viz.,  that  Shabuoth 
shall  be  seven  weeks  from  Pesach.  But  this  is  no 
advance,  nor  is  the  specification  new  in  Deuteron- 
omy ;  since  Exod.  xxxiv.  already  uses  the  name  Sha- 
buoth, which  implies  the  dependence  of  the  feast 
for  its  computation  upon  Mazzoth.  All  the  other 
specifications  of  time  regard  only  the  duration  of  the 
feast,  or  the  exact  time  of  day  to  begin  its  observ- 
ance, all  which  cannot  have  had  any  thing  to  do 
with  the  centralization  of  the  cultus.  On  the  con- 
trary, where  a  specification  for  this  purpose  might 
be  expected,  it  is  not  made.  Chap.  xvi.  i,  "Observe 
the  month  of  Abib,"  is  even  more  indefinite  than 
the  Jehovistic  phrase,  "  in  the  time  appointed  of  the 
month  Abib,"  Exod.  xxiii.  15.  Indeed,  it  is  hardly 
conceivable,  if  Deuteronomy  was  written  with  the 
tendency  ascribed  to  it  by  the  critics,  that  the  author 
would   have  failed  to  secure  what  was  first   of   all 


152  THE   PE.VTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

necessary  to  centralization  ;  viz.,  to  fix  for  each  feast 
a  definite  date. 

Deuteronomy,  it  is  alleged,  shows  an  advance  by 
defining  the  exact  quantity  of  the  produce  of  the 
field  which  had  to  be  brought  to  the  feasts.  It  does 
not  appear,  however,  that  Deuteronomy  identifies 
the  first-fruits  and  the  tithes  in  this  way.  They 
were  distinct,  and  are  kept  so  in  chap,  xxvi.,  where 
ver.  i-ii  treat  of  the  first-fruits,  ver.  12-15  o^  the 
third  year's  tithe.  Naturally  the  first-fruits,  the 
quantity  of  which  is  nowhere  determined  (chap,  xxvi., 
a  basket),  would  be  taken  along  at  the  occasion  of  a 
feast :  still,  this  is  nowhere  prescribed.  The  command 
to  give  the  first-born  to  Jehovah  is  in  Exod.  xxxiv.  19 
subjoined  to  that  of  Mazzoth  on  account  of  the  his- 
torical connection.  Chap.  xxii.  30  seems  even  to  pre- 
clude the  offering  at  a  feast  ;  as  it  says,  ''  The  eighth 
day  thou  shalt  give  it  me."  Exod.  xxiii.  19  refers 
probably  to  the  single  sheaf  of  Shabuoth.  The  only 
evidence  in  favor  of  this  view  lies  in  the  position  of 
Deut.  XV.  19-23  immediately  before  the  Passover- 
law.  Indeed,  when  we  combine  this  with  the  injunc- 
tion to  sacrifice  the  Passover  to  the  Lord  of  the  flock 
and  the  herd,  the  suggestion  gains  in  plausibility 
that  the  firstlings  were  offered  at  Passover  or  Maz- 
zoth. But  this  is  far  from  proving  Wellhausen's 
theory,  that  the  feasts  were  originally  nothing  else 
than  occasions  to  offer  the  aparcJiae.  The  law  knows 
nothing  of  such  an  identification  of  the  two,  any 
more  than  it  identifies  tithes  and  first-fruits.  An 
explicit  statement  would  in  both  cases  have  been 
necessary,  as  Wellhausen  himself  admits.      "  In  the 


FEASTS.  153 

Jehovistic  and  Deuteronomic  Codes,  the  connection 
between  npaixhae  and  feasts  is  rather  assumed  than 
expressed."  And  assumed  it  is,  not,  however,  by  the 
laws,  but  by  the  critic  himself. 

With  regard  to  the  four  pecuUarities  of  the  Priest 
Code  first  mentioned,  Httle  need  be  said.  That  sacri- 
ficial meals  were  changed  into  minutely  defined  sin- 
and  burnt-offerings,  rests  on  the  utterly  fallacious 
notion,  that,  until  shortly  before  the  exile,  all  sacri- 
fices were  sacrificial  meals.  We  have  spoken  of  this 
before.  It  is  self-evident  that  the  feast-offerings  of 
the  Priest  Code  (Num.  xxviii.)  do  not  exclude  the 
^1^31  ji^if  [Jlock  and  herd),  which  Deuteronomy  com- 
mands to  be  freely  offered,  and  then  to  be  eaten 
before  the  Lord.  The  whole  passage  in  Deuteron- 
omy does  not  purport  to  give  complete  regulations 
concerning  the  feasts  and  their  ceremonies  and  sacri- 
fices, but  simply  considers  them  under  the  one  great 
aspect,  that  of  unity  of  cultus,  for  the  maintenance 
of  which  they  were  one  of  the  most  effectual  and 
important  means. 

The  aparchac,  it  is  further  alleged,  are  separated 
from  the  feasts  :  they  appear  no  longer  as  offerings, 
but  have  been  transformed  into  priestly  revenues. 
We  have  already  seen  that  Deut.  xv.  19-23  furnishes 
the  only  support  to  the  view  that  the  aparcJiae  were 
connected  with  the  feasts  at  all.  Historical  probabil- 
ity is  all  that  can  be  claimed  here.  But  that  the 
Priest  Code  severs  the  aparcJiae  from  the  feasts  is 
positively  untrue.  It  simply  does  not  specify  a  time 
when  they  shall  be  offered,  and  this  for  the  obvious 
reason,  that  the  words,  Num.  xviii.,  are  addressed  to 


154         ^^^   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

the  priests,  who  were  the  receivers,  and  not  to  the 
people.  The  other  half  of  Wellhausen's  statement 
is  equally  inaccurate.  It  is  true  that  the  Priest 
Code  makes  the  aparcJiae  priestly  revenues.  Com- 
pare Num.  xviii.  13,  15.  Still,  the  context  itself 
shows  that  this  is  not  meant  in  such  a  sense  as  would 
be  inconsistent  with  the  evident  purpose  indicated  in 
Deut.  xiv.  and  xv.,  that  they  should  serve  as  a  joyful 
meal  to  the  offerer.  Num.  xviii.  17,  18,  shows  that 
the  first-born  were  to  be  offered  as  sJielamini^  with 
this  distinction  only,  that  not  only  breast  and 
shoulder,  but  all  the  flesh,  fell  to  the  priests.  Now, 
when  we  remember  that  probably  all  the  first-born 
came  in  at  the  same  time  of  Passover,  it  becomes 
almost  impossible  that  the  priests  should  have  kept 
all  this  to  themselves.  The  most  natural  inference 
is,  that  they  restored  a  portion  of  the  meat  to  the 
oJerer,  sufficiently  large  to  enable  him  to  keep  the 
meal  mentioned  in  Deuteronomy. 

Thirdly,  the  critics  discover  an  advance  in  the  fact 
that  the  Priest  Code  has  finally  settled  the  dates  of 
all  the  feasts.  The  main  point  is,  to  show  that  the 
original  conception  of  agricultural  feasts  has  been 
entirely  lost.  The  latter,  depending  on  the  ripeness 
of  the  harvest,  cannot  be  bound  to  any  definite  date. 

The  critics  must  admit  that  the  Priest  Code  does 
not  onl)/  recognize  an  agricultural  element  in  its 
feast-laws,  but  dwells  upon  it  with  special  emphasis 
in  the  case  of  both  Mazzoth  and  Succoth  (Lev.  xxiii.). 
Still,  it  assigns  to  each  a  fixed  date.  Is  any  thing 
more  required  to  show  that  both  are  perfectly  con- 
sistent, and  that  the  Liw  could  definitely  appoint  the 


FEASTS.  155 

time  of  observance  without  giving  the  sceptical  critics 
any  well-grounded  suspicion  that  the  two  could  not 
go  together  ?  How  impracticable  that  Priest  Code 
must  have  been ! 

But  in  the  fourth  place,  still  graver  charges  are 
made  against  it.  It  is  accused  of  fictitiously  substi= 
tuting  historical  combinations  for  the  natural  basis  of 
the  feasts.  We  saw  how  little  this  is  the  case.  Lev. 
xxiii.  does  not  mention  the  historical  occasion  of  the 
institution  of  Pesach  and  Mazzoth,  whereas  both 
the  Jehovist  and  the  Deuteronomist  do  so.  Also  in 
the  case  of  Succoth,  the  historical  element  is  given 
only  a  secondary  importance.  Succoth  is  the  only 
feast  for  whose  historical  significance  we  have  inde- 
pendent testimony  outside  of  the  law  in  Hos.  xii.  10. 

That  in  Exod.  xii.,  Pesach  and  Mazzoth  are  insti- 
tuted not  merely  in  commemoration  of  the  exodus, 
but  as  an  effectual  means  of  saving  Israel,  is  true, 
The  cause,  however,  lies  not  in  any  tendency  pursued 
by  the  author,  but  in  the  peculiar  position  of  Israel. 
Their  whole  history,  and  relation  to  the  Gentiles,  were 
typical  of  the  relation  of  God's  saved  people  to  the 
world.  Hence,  that  which  distinguished  them  from 
the  Egyptians,  and  secured  their  safety  from  the 
slaying  angel,  could  be  nothing  else  than  a  type  of 
that  great  Passover-lamb,  participation  in  which 
would  one  day  distinguish  the  spiritual  Israel  from 
the  world  under  condemnation.  The  case  finds  a 
parallel  in  the  institution  of  our  Lord's  supper 
before   the   crucifixion. 

By  prescribing  a  Mikra  Kodesh  (holy  convocation) 
on  the    seventh   day   of    Mazzoth,   the    Priest    Code 


156  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

makes  it  obligatory  for  all  Israelites  to  spend  the 
whole  feast  in  Jerusalem.  Critics  find  in  this  a  new 
advance  upon  Deuteronomy.  Stahelin,  Von  Len- 
gerke,  De  Wette,  Hupfeld,  and  Knobel  understand 
by  Mikra  Kodesh  a  holy  convocation  at  the  central 
sanctuary,  so  that  a  pilgrimage  thither  was  required. 
Though  the  words  in  themselves  might  have  this 
meaning,  the  view  becomes  mitenable  when  we  see 
that  a  Mikra  Kodesh  w^as  appointed  not  less  than  three 
times  for  one  —  viz.,  the  seventh  —  month.  Since  it 
would  have  been  impossible  to  demand  three  pilgrim- 
ages to  Jerusalem  in  one  month,  the  phrase  must 
necessarily  denote  any  convocation  in  a  local  place 
of  worship,  for  the  purpose  of  observing  the  day. 
Hence  we  reach  the  conclusion,  that  neither  in  Le- 
viticus nor  in  Deuteronomy  does  the  law  determine 
how  Ions:  the  Israelites  were  to  remain  at  the  sanctu- 
ary  at  the  annual  feasts.  That  the  prevalent  custom 
was  to  stay  all  seven  days,  is  probable.  Still,  the  law 
does  not  expressly  demand  it.  Deut.  xvi.  7  seems 
even  to  indicate  the  contrary:  "Thou  shalt  turn  in 
the  morning,  and  go  unto  thy  tents."  As  they  sup- 
pose that  the  laws  recjuire  a  seven  days'  stay,  Keil  and 
Riehm  take  this  as  signifying  a  return  to  their  homes 
and  lodgings  at  the  place  of  the  sanctuary.  This  in- 
volves the  assumption,  that  the  Passover  was  eaten 
in  the  court  of  the  sanctuary  by  all  Israelites,  which 
would  have  been  hardly  practicable.  We  understand 
ver.  7  as  containing  a  permission  to  return  after  the 
first  night.  That  the  custom  was  to  remain  during 
the  whole  feast,  is  not  denied.  But  the  law  allowing 
this  return  in  the  morning,  evidently  tries  to  empha- 


FEASTS.  I  5  7 

size  the  absolute  necessity  of  being  at  the  place  of 
the  sanctuary  at  least  during  that  one  night. 

To  both  Mazzoth  and  Succoth,  the  Priest  Code 
adds  one  day,  according  to  Wellhausen.  That  Lev. 
xxiii.  assigns  eight  days  to  Succoth  is  clear.  On 
the  other  hand,  Deuteronomy  speaks  only  of  seven 
days  of  the  feast.  Its  silence  respecting  the  eighth 
day  of  r\-^%:j;,  {solemn  assembly)  is  easily  accounted  for. 
The  purpose  of  Deuteronomy  was  not  to  lay  down 
minute  rules  for  feast-observance.  So  only  the  feast 
proper,  consisting  of  seven  days,  is  summarily  re- 
ferred to.  And  even  the  Priest  Code  does  not  con- 
sider the  eighth  day  as  an  essential  part  of  the  feast. 
It  is  rather  a  close  to  the  whole  cycle  of  feasts,  and 
consequently  added  to  the  last.  Num.  xxix.  35,  in 
assigning  to  it  fewer  sacrifices  than  to  the  feast 
proper,  puts  this  beyond  doubt.  The  notion  that 
the  Priest  Code  makes  Mazzoth  one  day  longer  than 
Deuteronomy,  arises  simply  from  the  popular  use  of 
the  date  in  Lev.  xxiii.  5,  "  On  the  fourteenth  day  of 
the  first  month  at  eve,"  evidently  meaning,  "On  the 
evening  with  which  the  fifteenth  day  begins."  This 
was  also  the  beginning  of  the  first  Mazzoth-day,  and 
so  no  contradiction  exists. 

,  We  come  now  to  the  last  and  most  serious  charge 
against  the  Priest  Code  ;  viz.,  that  it  has  added  two 
new  feasts,  unknown  before,  that  of  Teruah  (trum- 
pets) and  the  Yom  Kippurim  (Day  of  Atonement). 
That  the  Priest  Code  adds  new  feasts,  is  inaccurate. 
Lev.  xxiii.  does  not  enumerate  the  feasts,  but  simply 
the  Moedim  (appointed  seasons)  on  which  a  Mikra 
Kodesh  (holy  convocation)  was  held.     That  neither 


158  THE   PEXTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

the  Covenant-law  nor  Deuteronomy  makes  mention 
of  these  two  Moedim,  is  in  consequence  of  their 
enumerating  only  such  feasts  as  required  an  appear- 
ance before  the  Lord  at  the  sanctuary.  Hence  the 
Sabbath  is  not  even  alluded  to  in  connection  with 
the  feast-laws.  Since  Teruah  and  Yom  Kippurim 
required  only  a  Mikra  Kodesh,  they  are  omitted. 

In  so  far  as  Wellhausen  holds  that  before  the  exile 
the  Jewish  year  began  in  the  autumn,  it  is  strange 
that  he  should  consider  Teruah  as  of  post-exilic  origin. 
It  is  highly  probable  a  priori,  that  the  beginning  of 
the  harvest-year  was  celebrated  by  a  feast,  the  more 
so  since  the  ordinary  observance  of  the  new  moons 
would  naturally  lead  to  it.  But  this  point  also  must 
be  utilized  to  prove  the  late  origin  of  the  Priest  Code. 
During  the  exile,  the  Jews  derived  their  spring-era 
from  the  Babylonians,  whose  year,  according  to  As- 
syriologists,  began  in  the  spring.  The  Priest  Code 
wishing  to  preserve  the  old  autumn-year,  made  a  dis- 
tinction between  the  civil  and  the  ecclesiastical  vear. 
Against  this  hypothesis  of  Wellhausen,  the  simple 
reference  to  such  passages  as  2  Sam.  xi.  i  ;  i  Kings 
XX.  22,  26;  Jer.  xxxvi.  9,  22,  and/^i-^/w,  may  sufifice. 
For  the  rest,  even  Graf  admits  (p.  40),  that,  from  the 
silence  of  the  previous  Codes,  no  conclusion  as  to 
the  non-existence  of  Teruah  can  be  drawn. 

The  argument  against  a  pre-exilic  existence  of  the 
Day  of  Atonement  is  twofold.  First,  the  common 
argnmcntuvi  e  silentio.  Little  need  be  said  about 
this.  The  critics  agree  that  the  cycle  of  the  three 
great  feasts  dates  back  to  the  earliest  times  of  the 
possession  of  Canaan.     Instead  of  repeated  mention. 


FEASTS.  T59 

as  we  would  expect,  we  find  the  observance  of  Sha- 
biioth  but  once  stated  before  the  exile  (2  Chron.  viii. 
13),  Succoth  four  times  (probably  Judg.  xxi.  19  and  i 
Sam.  i.  20,  21  ;  I  Kings  viii.  2,  xii.  32),  Pesach  twice 
(probably  Isa.  xxx.  29;  2  Kings  xxiii.  21),  the  three 
together  (i  Kings  ix.  25  and  2  Chron.  viii.  13).  At 
the  same  time  the  prophets  speak  in  terms  which 
presuppose  a  fixed  cycle  of  yearly  feasts  (Isa.  xxix. 
i).  When  we  add  to  this,  that  the  arguinc]ituin  e 
silentio,  strictly  applied,  would  bring  the  origin  of  the 
Day  of  Atonement  down  to  the  time  of  John  Hyrca- 
nus,  or  even  of  Herod  the  Great  (37  B.C.),  little  more 
need  be  added.  -< 

In  Ezek.  xl.  i,  we  read  that  the  prophet  received 
his  vision  in  "the  beginning  of  the  year,  in  the  tenth 
day  of  the  month."  Ezekiel  follows  the  autumn-era 
in  other  instances  (compare  chap.  xlv.  18,  20).  Ac- 
cordingly, Lev.  XXV.  9  would  be  parallel,  where  the 
Year  of  Jubilee  is  said  to  begin  on  the  tenth  day  of 
the  seventh  month,  in  the  Day  of  Atonement.  As 
the  critics  recognize  a  close  relationship  between 
Lev.  xviii.-xxvi.  and  Ezekiel,  the  inference  would 
not  be  rash,  that  Ezekiel  takes  "the  beginning  of 
the  year"  and  "the  tenth  day  of  the  month"  as 
synonymous  ;  was  acquainted  with  the  Year  of  Jubi- 
lee as  beginning  on  that  particular  day,  and  conse- 
quently with  the  Day  of  Atonement  itself,  since  its 
connection  with  the  beginning  of  the  year  of  release 
was  not  incidental,  but  of  deep  significance  (compare 
Isa.  Iviii.,  especially  ver.  5).  Wellhausen  avoids  the 
inference  by  declaring  D")^i33n  DV3  {in  the  Day  of 
Atoiiement)  an  interpolation  of  a  later  hand,  and  is 


l6o         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

consequently  obliged  to  assume  that  to  Ezekiel  the 
new  year  began  on  the  loth  of  Tisri.  How  this  hap- 
pened to  fall  on  the  tenth  of  a  month,  he  does  not 
explain  ;  for  what  is  said  on  p.  114  hardly  deserves 
the  name  of  an  explanation.  That  it  became  easy, 
after  the  beginning  of  the  civil  year  had  been  trans- 
ferred to  spring,  to  fix  upon  any  date  whatever,  is  not 
true.  The  old  date,  Tisri  i,  was  there;  and  what 
could  have  occasioned  its  change  from  the  beginning 
to  the  middle  of  the  month,  it  is  not  easy  to  see. 

But  there  is  another  w^ay  of  arguing  e  silentio. 
It  is  alleged  that  there  are  certain  pre-exilic  passages, 
where  mention  of  the  day  would  have  been  appro- 
priate, or  even  necessary,  had  it  been  in  existence. 
We  give  them  in  their  order  of  occurrence,  and  add 
a  few  explanatory  remarks  to  each  respectively  : '  — 

In  I  Kings  viii.  6%,  the  consecration  of  the  temple 
is  said  to  have  occasioned  a  double  feast.  The  feast 
referred  to  in  ver.  2  must  have  been  Succoth.  The 
chronicler  gives  his  comment  upon  this  in  his  second 
book  (vii.  7-10).  According  to  him,  the  last  seven 
days  closed  on  the  twenty-third  of  the-  seventh 
month.  Hence  the  additional  seven  days  preceded 
the  common  Succoth-w^eek.  But  then  they  extended 
from  the  eighth  of  the  month  onward,  and  the  feast 
of  consecrating  the  temple  coincided  with  the  Day  of 
Atonement.  Since  the  latter  was  a  day  of  affliction, 
this  would  have  been  impossible  ;  and  critics  claim 
to  have  here  the  most  conclusive  argument,  that 
no  Day  of  Atonement  existed  either  in   Solomon's 

^  For  much  on  this  point,  we  are  indebted  to  the  paper  of  Dr.  Delitzsch  in 
Luthardt's  Zeitschrift,  iSSo,  Heft.  iv. 


FEASTS.  l6l 

time  or  in  that  of  the  chronicler.  For  the  chroni- 
cler would  not  have  failed  to  notice  and  correct  the 
incongruity,  had  it  really  existed.     We  remark,  — 

1.  The  conception  of  the  Day  of  Atonement  was 
not  so  much  that  of  sadness  and  gloom,  as  to  be 
entirely  inconsistent  with  the  consecration  of  the 
temple  (compare  Isa.  Iviii.).  Both  the  Mishna  and 
Gemara  present  it  as  a  day  of  joy. 

2.  If  the  consecration  of  the  temple  was  going  on, 
and  no  rites  and  ceremonies  could  be  legally  per- 
formed before  this  came  to  an  end,  it  was  not  strange 
if  the  observance  of  the  Day  of  Atonement  was  dis- 
regarded for  once.  The  idea  of  purifying  a  sanctuary 
newly  built,  not  yet  quite  consecrated,  and  filled  with 
the  glorious  presence  of  God,  is  absurd. 

3.  That,  according  to  the  chronicler,  Solomon  put 
this  initiatory  feast  at  the  time  of  the  yearly  atone- 
ment, is  highly  significant,  and  contained  rather  an 
allusion  to  the  day  than  a  proof  of  its  non-existence. 

Ezra  iii.  1-6.  From  Tisri  536  the  full  sacrificial 
service  commenced.  Accordingly,  neither  Yom 
Teruah  nor  Yom  Kippurim  was  observed.  But  how 
could  the  latter,  when,  according  to  ver.  6}"  the  founda- 
tion of  the  temple  of  the  Lord  had  not  yet  been  laid  } 

In  Neh.  viii.  13-17,  which  speaks  of  the  year  B.C. 
444,  the  feast  of  tabernacles  is  observed,  but  as  some- 
thing new.  This  shows,  says  Wellhausen,  that  the 
Thora,  which  contained  Lev.  xxiii.  (with  the  excep- 
tion of  ver.  26-32),  had  not  yet  been  promulgated, 
and  was  now  published  by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  in 
this  very  year  444. 

From  Ezra  iii.  4,  it  is  clear  that  an  absolute  igno- 


1 62  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

ranee  of  Sueeoth  eannot  be  assumed.  The  emphasis 
in  the  passage  referred  to,  Hes  evidently  in  the  so 
(viii.  17).  Hence  the  theory,  that  Ezra  now  pubhshed 
the  Code  for  the  first  time,  finds  no  support  in  this 
fact ;  and  no  inference  of  the  non-existence  of  the 
Day  of  Atonement  can  be  drawn.  Compare,  for  a 
parallel  case,  Deut.  xxiii.  4-6  with  Neh.  xiii.  i.  The 
fast-day  in  Neh.  ix.  is  radically  different  in  conception 
from  the  Day  of  Atonement. 

Ezekiel  mentions  no  Day  of  Atonement,  but  only 
two  days  of  reconciliation,  on  the  first  of  the  first 
and  seventh  month  respectively.  Apart  from  the 
fact  that  Ezekiel  is  also  silent  with  regard  to  other 
feasts,  of  which  we  know  he  was  not  ignorant  (e.g., 
Shabuoth),  we  have  seen  already  that  chap.  xl.  i 
contains  probably  an  allusion  to  this  day.  And  it  is 
far  more  probable,  that  the  two  days  of  reconcilia- 
tion were  a  modification  of  the  Day  of  Atonement 
than  the  reverse. 

Even  the  post-exilic  Zechariah  is  summoned  as  a 
witness  against  this  day.  Graf  says,  ''When  inter- 
rogated concerning  the  commemorative  fast-days,  he 
does  not  even  allude  to  the  Day  of  Atonement " 
(chap  vii.  and  viii.).  The  simple  reason  is,  that  he 
had  no  occasion  to  do  so.  For  the  Day  of  Atone- 
ment was  not  a  day  of  sad  historical  remembrance, 
not  a  ^^ dies  ater''  in  the  sense  in  which  the  four  re- 
ferred to  were. 

There  are  several  considerations  which  make  the 
high  antiquity  of  this  day  very  plausible. 

I.  Ail  ancient  peoples  had  special  feasts  of  purifi- 
cation. It  is  not  likely  that  the  Israelites  formed  an 
exception. 


FEASTS.  163 

2.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive  how,  without  any 
precedent  in  the  practice  before  the  exile,  such  a 
fiction  could,  after  the  exile,  have  found  immediate 
acceptance. 

3.  That  the  Day  of  Atonement  was  not  so  univer- 
sally observed,  and  did  not  make  such  a  deep  im- 
pression upon  the  national  life  of  the  people,  must 
be  attributed  to  its  deep  spiritual  significance.  The 
joyful  agricultural  feasts  appealed  more  to  the  na- 
tional inclinations  than  the  day  of  affliction  to  the 
consciousness  of  sin. 

4.  That,  especially  after  the  exile,  more  traces  of 
such  a  consciousness  appear,  must  be  explained  on 
the  same  ground.  The  judgment  of  the  captivity 
had  greatly  deepened  the  sense  of  sin,  and  taught 
them  better  to  appreciate  this  atoning  feast. 

5.  The  ceremony  with  the  goat  for  Azazel  points 
to  a  high  antiquity.     So  also  other  forms  of  language. 

6.  The  most  incredible  feature  of  the  newer  theory 
is,  that  at  a  time  when  no  ark  or  mercy-seat  existed 
any  longer,  or  could  be  hoped  ever  to  exist  again,  the 
law  should  have  been  framed  in  which  they  play 
such  a  prominent,  almost  exclusive,  part. 

7.  The  critics  cannot  help  themselves  by  merely 
removing  Lev.  xvi.  from  the  Priest  Code.  The 
whole  Code  in  all  its  parts  abounds  in  references  to 
it  (compare  Exod.  xxx.  10,  Lev.  xxiii.,  xxv.).  Num. 
viii.  7  is  very  striking.  Also  the  name  of  the  mercy- 
seat,  J^^.33,  reminds  us  of  the  solemn  ceremony  of 
sprinkling  atoning  blood  on  the  cover  of  the  ark 
once  a  year. 

Finally,  Wellhausen  asserts  that  the  Priest  Code 


164  THE   PE.VTATEUCnAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

makes  of  t?ie  relative  Sabbath-year,  an  absolute  one, 
which  required  all  fields  to  rest  at  the  same  time. 
But  the  expressions  in  Exod,  xxiii.  10,  11,  do  not 
decide  either  for  or  against  Wellhausen's  theory, 
that  at  first  the  year  was  chosen  arbitrarily  by  each 
individual  for  each  separate  field.  And  his  second 
statement,  that  the  Priest  Code  advances  upon  the 
Covenant-law  by  requiring  the  suspension  of  sowing 
also,  rests  on  a  mistaken  exegesis  of  Exod.  xxiii.  11, 
which  refers  the  suffix  (it),  not  to  ]*7^?  {land),  but  to 
nxori  {fruit),  of  the  preceding  verse.  That  the 
Year  of  Jubilee  does  not  appear  in  any  previous 
legislation,  need  not  awake  surprise.  Neither  does 
the  Covenant-law  mention  new  moons.  It  is  true, 
history  offers  no  instance  in  which  the  law  was  ob- 
served ;  but  this  simply  shows  that  it  was  in  a  certain 
sense  very  impracticable,  and  difficult  to  carry  out. 
Still,  the  prophets  allude  to  it  (compare  Isa.  Iviii., 
Ixi.  I  ;  Ezek.  xlvi.  17). 

f  We  have  reached  the  end  of  our  discussion  of 
J  the  pretended  development  in  the  cultus  of  Israel. 
However  deficient  it  may  have  been,  we  hope  it 
shows  that  the  newest  Pentateuchal  criticism  has 
weak  points  in  its  very  strongholds.  No  single  point 
has  been  discovered  which  was  utterly  inconsistent 
with  the  unity  of  the  Codes.  We  approach  a  new 
topic  now.  Having  found  the  unity  of  the  laws  in 
Exodus-Numbers  confirmed  by  positive  proof,  and 
the  objections  brought  against  it  unfounded,  we  may 
proceed  to  consider  the  relation  of  this  body  of  the 
law  to  Deuteronomy. 


DEUTERONOMY  AND   PRECEDING  BOOKS.      1 65 

73  Li- '  ^) 


CHAPTER    XIII. 

UNITY  OF  DEUTERONOMY  AND  THE  LAWS  OF  THE 
INTERMEDIATE  BOOKS. 

ON  the  essential  unity  o£  Dent,  v.-xxvi.,  all  critics 
agree.  They  differ  somewhat  in  opinion  as  to 
the  subsequent  parts  of  tlie  book.  Also,  the  intro- 
ductory chapters  have  been  severed  from  the  bulk  of 
the  book,  which  is  legal.  Still,  they  are  often  attrib- 
uted to  the  same  author,  wdio  forged  the  Code,  and 
composed  them  afterwards  to  unite  his  book  wTth  the 
Jehovistic  document.  For  example,  Graf  holds  that 
Jeremiah  was  the  author  of  Deut.  i.-xxx.  Kayser 
ascribes  to  one  and  the  same  author,  iv.  44-xxvi.,  xxvii. 
in  part,  and  xxviii.  He  does  not  decide  whether  the 
introductory  and  closing  chapters  belong  to  him  or 
not  (p.  141).  Kuenen  thinks  that  chap.  i.  i-xxxii. 
47  were  composed  as  one  piece. 

When  we  speak  here  of  unity,  it  is  obviously  in  a 
wider  sense  than  before.  The  Sinaitic  legislation 
was  given  within  a  few  months,  w^hilst  between  it 
and  Deuteronomy  fall  more  than  forty  years.  It  is 
not  unity  of  time,  much  less  of  circumstances  and 
environment,  but  unity  of  authorship  of  spirit  and 
aim,  and  of  underlying  ideas,  which  we  seek.  Even 
the  old  view  of  Dclitzsch,  who  held  that  a  man  like 


1 66  THE   PEXTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

Joshua,  or  one  of  the  elders,  D'jpr,  on  whom  the  spirit 
of  Moses  rested,  supplemented  the  Elohistic  narra- 
tive by  writing  Deuteronomy,  maintains  the  essen- 
tial unity  in  this  wide  sense.  Kleinert's  view,  on 
the  other  hand,  that  Deuteronomy  was  written  in  the 
time  of  Samuel,  would  already  give  it  up ;  and  to 
speak  of  laws,  originating  in  as  late  a  period  as  that 
of  the  Kings,  as  Mosaic,  is  not  only  inaccurate,  but 
misleading. 

We    are    chiefly    concerned    with    two    questions 
here  :  — 

1.  Does  a  relative  unity  between  Deuteronomy  and 
the  middle  books  exist } 

2.  To  which  of  the  two  must  we  assign  the  priority  } 

I.   Does  a  relative  unity  exist  t 

The  peculiar  character  of  Deuteronomy  has  been 
defined  in  various  ways,  owing  to  the  fact  that  indi- 
vidual traits  have  been  exclusively  emphasized,  and 
\  made  to  account  for  all  the  others.  Kurtz  and  Riehm 
describe  it  as  the  people's  Code,  and  find  in  this 
destination  the  main  distinction  from  the  Levitical 
legislation.  Keil  speaks  of  ''a  hortatory  description, 
explanation,  and  enforcement  of  the  most  essential 
contents  of  the  Covenant  relation  and  Covenant-laws, 
with  emphatic  prominence  given  to  the  spiritual  prin- 
ciple of  the  law  and  its  fulfilment."  Ewald  as  "a 
fresh  and  independent  law,  standing  side  by  side 
with  the  earlier  one, — a  transformation  of  the  old 
law,  to  suit  altered  circumstances."  Schultz  gives  as 
the  aim  of  the  book,  "to  secure  by  supplementary 
regulations  that  the  laws  and  institutions  of  the  pre- 


DEUTERONOMY  AND  PRECEDING  BOOKS.      1 67 

vious  books,  whose  full  validity  is  presupposed,  shall 
be  observed,  not  only  in  an  external  way,  but  as  to 
their  inner  significance,  their  higher  aim,  their  spir- 
itual principle,"  etc. 

A  comparison  of  all  these  definitions  will  be  the 
best  test  of  their  accuracy.  Once  admitted  that 
each  of  them  has  some  support  in  the  book,  their 
deficiency  will  immediately  appear  by  observing  that 
they  do  not  cover  each  other.  That  Deuteronomy  is 
the  people's  Code,  does  not  explain  why  it  should  not 
only  interpret,  but  also  enlarge  and  add.  The  same 
objection  may  be  raised  against  Schultz's  definition 
and  that  of  Keil.  The  supplementary  character  of 
the  Code  is  by  no  means  so  accidental  and  secondary 
that  it  can  be  overlooked  in  a  definition. 

Another  inference  is,  how  little  right  we  have  to 
determine  the  date  of  a  book  from  the  indications 
of  a  single  feature.  All  these  traits  must  have  an 
underlying  common  cause.  Their  bearing  upon  the 
critical  question  of  authenticity  can  be  truly  esti- 
mated only  when  this  deeper  principle  has  been 
recognized.  Individual  features  derive  their  true 
significance  from  their  common  source,  and  severed 
from  this  are  very  likely  to  be  misinterpreted. 

This  one  principal  tendency  seems  to  have  been 
best  appreciated  by  Havernick.  He  recognizes  two 
prominent  contrasts  with  the  Levitical  law, — sub- 
jectivity and  parenesis  or  hortatory  character.  Pro- 
ceeding on  this  observation,  Havernick  finds  in 
Deuteronomy  the  fundamental  type  of  all  Old-Testa- 
ment prophecy.  '*  Moses  appears  here  as  a  prophet, 
X^3^i ;    and   subsequent   prophetism    is    considered    as 


1 68  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

nothing  but  the  development  of  his  work,  standing 
with  it  in  the  most  intimate  and  vital  connection." 

It  is  remarkable  how  much  light  is  shed  by  a 
just  appreciation  of  this  principle  on  all  other  fea- 
tures of  the  Code.  That  it  addresses  the  people, 
no  longer  awakens  surprise.  Prophecy  roots  itself  in 
the  law,  not  abolishing,  counteracting,  or  modifying 
it,  but  explaining,  exhorting,  enforcing,  above  all 
things  evolving  the  spiritual  kernel  from  the  objec- 
tive external  form.  Subjectivity  and  a  reflective 
character  are  adequately  explained.  Once  more, 
prophecy  does  not  indulge  in  scholastic  repetition 
of  separate  statutes,  but  seizes  upon  the  prominent 
points,  which,  under  the  circumstances  of  the  time, 
need  special  elucidation  and  enforcement.  Thus 
also  for  what  the  Code  passes  by  in  silence,  Haver- 
nick's  view  assigns  a  satisfactory  ground  of  omission. 
How  it  embraces  the  features  which  Schultz  has  so 
well  brought  out,  is  self-evident.  Not  less  does  it 
include  the  view  of  Ewald  and  Riehm,  for  Moses  is 
prophet  and  legislator  at  the  same  time.  Havernick 
says,  "As  mediator  of  the  Old  Covenant,  he  stands 
at.  the  summit  of  all  prophecy :  .  .  .  the  distinctive 
character  of  his  work  is,  that  it  not  merely  approaches 
the  law  from  the  stand-point  of  subjective  application, 
but  also  develops  and  completes  it." 

The  correctness  of  this  view  may  further  be  tested 
by  its  applicability  to  all  the  phenomena.  We  can- 
not enter  upon  the  matter  in  detail,  but  only  indicate 
the  rough  outlines  along  which  the  argument  ought 
to  proceed. 

(i)   Instead  of  God  speaking  to  Moses,  and  Moses 


DEUTERONOMY  AND   PRECEDING   BOOKS.       1 69 

to  Aaron  and  his  sons,  Moses  speaks  here  directly  as 
God's  mouthpiece  in  long  discourses  to  the  people. 
That  such  is  the  conception  of  prophecy,  the  book 
states  itself  (xviii.  15,  seqq.). 

(2)  The  hortatory,  parenetical  style  exhibits  a 
mind  not  bound  by  the  letter*of  the  law,  but  aroused 
and  swayed  by  the  powerful  impulse  of  direct  in- 
spiration, 

(3)  The  generalizing  method,  which  seizes  upon 
points  of  present  practical  importance,  adapts  and 
applies  the  law  to  the  wants  of  contemporary  history, 
and  emphasizes  principles  instead  of  giving  legal 
viiniLtiac,  exhibits  a  striking  conformity  to  the  work 
of  the  later  prophets. 

(4)  The  generic  treatment  of  the  future.  Where 
there  is  foresight,  and  provision  is  made  for  remote 
conditions,  they  are  still  such  as  will  be  the  natural 
outgrowth  of  the  present,  and  germinally  contained 
in  it.  This  is  the  case  with  the  law  of  the  king- 
dom (chap,  xvii.)  and  of  prophecy  (xviii.).  The  pro- 
phetic eye  saw  the  future  in  the  present,  since  the 
former  was  conditioned  by  the  latter.  This  ac- 
counts for  the  emphasis  laid  on  centralization  of  wor- 
ship, and  for  the  possibility  of  making  regulations 
now  which  could  be  used  centuries  after  as  refor- 
matory rules. 

(5)  The  same  principle  may  have  caused  the  gen- 
eral treatment  of  certain  classes — e.g.,  the  priests 
as  Levites  —  and  a  few  other  peculiarities. 

We  are  now  enabled  to  put  the  question  more 
definitely.     Does  the  diversity  of  character  preclude 


lyo         THE   FENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

the  unity  of  authorship  ?  In  other  words,  is  it  un- 
thinkable that  one  and  the  same  person  should  com- 
bine in  himself  the  qualifications  of  a  legislator  and 
a  prophet  ?  That  the  modern  criticism  has  answered 
this  question  in  the  negative,  is  enough  to  show  how 
incapable  it  is  of  a  deeper  philosophical  conception 
and  appreciation  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  deals 
with  phenomena  as  if  they  were  the  ultimate  data; 
mathematical  figures,  which  can  be  made  to  repre- 
sent whatever  value  the  critic  ascribes  to  them. 
At  the  bottom  of  all  this  lies  the  naturalistic  denial 
of  those  great  principles  whose  recognition  is  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  a  right  understanding  of  the  Old 
Testament.  "In  all  induction,  theory  leads."  Dr. 
Kuenen  himself  declares  it  impossible  to  argue  from 
facts  alone.  He  admits,  that  from  certain  indubitable 
points  the  chief  lines  must  be  drawn,  and  that  these 
must  guide  in  our  interpretation  of  the  rest.  But 
whilst  he  accuses  Schrader  of  having  disregarded 
this  principle,  we  might  retort  the  charge  upon  him- 
self and  the  newer  criticism  in  general.  In  using 
the  facts  to  establish  its  theory  of  development,  this 
criticism  has  already  violated  the  rule,  that  they  are 
not  to  be  interpreted  outside  of  their  legitimate 
sphere,  or  in  the  light  of  a  naturalistic  philosophy, 
but  by  the  relation  they  sustain  to  the  system  of 
God's  revelation  of  which  Scripture  is  the  record. 

We  believe,  that,  on  the  basis  of  a  sound  psychol- 
ogy, nothing  can  be  said  against  the  union  of  these 
qualifications  in  Moses.  The  example  of  Ezekiel,  of 
whose  Thora  the  critics  have  made  such  an  extensive 
use,  is  enough  to  decide  the  question.      Looked  at 


DEUTERONOMY  AND   P RECEDING   BOOKS.       I /I 

from  an  historical  stand-point,  the  combination  was 
favored  by  all  the  circumstances.  Israel  was  at  the 
eve  of  a  new  period  in  its  history,  which  would  bring 
the  final  realization  of  long  delayed  promises,  but  at 
the  same  time  expose  to  new  and  unknown  allure- 
ments from  the  heathen  world.  It  entered  with  the 
possession  of  Canaan  upon  a  crisis  of  the  same  kind 
as  those  which  in  later  ages  called  forth  the  warning 
and  consoling  voice  of  prophecy.  It  would  have 
been  anomalous,  had  it  made  this  transition  so  far- 
reaching  in  its  consequences  without  the  attending 
light  of  a  prophetical  interpretation  of  the  law  to 
guide  it.  Not  less  obvious  were  these  circumstances 
with  regard  to  Moses  himself,  which  favored  this 
result.  He  had  now  nearly  attained  the  end  of  his 
labors ;  and  as,  before  his  death,  he  saw  the  promised 
land  from  the  top  of  Nebo,  so  in  the  sphere  of  time 
the  range  of  his  vision  is  widened.  As  the  dying 
patriarchs  saw  and  foretold  the  future  fate  of  their 
descendants,  and  blessed  their  house  in  their  last 
moments,  so  Moses,  the  greatest  of  all  Old-Testament 
saints,  left  to  the  whole  house  of  Israel,  as  a  dying 
father,  the  best  of  all  blessings,  a  law  adapted  to  all 
future  conditions.  His  work  was  not  for  one  genera- 
tion :  "mediator  of  the  Old  Covenant,"  he  stands 
high  above  all  other  prophets  and  saints  ;  already  half 
glorified,  no  longer  subject  to  the  limitations  of  time, 
he  surveys  the  Israel  of  all  ages  until  the  coming  of 
Christ,  and  accordingly  his  work  assumes  a  prospec- 
tive and  ideal  character,  so  striking  that  unbelieving 
critics  could  not  but  mistake  it  as  the  evidence  of  a 
much  later  origin. 


1/2  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

Even  a  man  like  Dr.  Kuenen  admits  that  these 
formal  characteristics  of  Deuteronomy  do  not  neces- 
sarily prove  that  it  was  written  by  another  hand 
than  the  intermediate  books.  It  is  only  in  connec- 
tion with  other  material  points  that  they  obtain 
significance  and  convincing  power.  We  need  not 
examine  all  the  arguments  that  have  been  adduced 
to  prove  the  diversity  of  authorship,  such  as  the 
peculiar  style  and  language,  the  silence  of  Deuter- 
onomy with  regard  to  certain  laws,  the  modification 
of  previous  laws,  addition  of  some  entirely  new  laws, 
etc.  Some  of  these  points  have  been  partially  dis- 
cussed before  ;  and  all  of  them  have  been  so  exhaus- 
tively treated  by  Hengstenberg,  Havernick,  Keil, 
Schultz,  and  others,  that  our  remarks  could  be  nothing 
more  than  a  repetition  of  their  statements. 

We  pass  on  to  the  second  question  involved  :  — 
2.   To  which  of  the   two  legislations  (that  of  the 
intermediate    books,   or   of    Deuteronomy)    shall    we 
assign  the  priority } 

It  might  appear  almost  unnecessary  after  having 
thus  defined  the  relation  of  Deuteronomy  .to  the 
other  Codes,  to  put  the  question  just  stated.  If  our 
conception  of  the  book  as  prophetical  is  in  the  main 
correct,  and  verified  by  its  applicability  to  the  phe- 
nomena, this  will  decide  the  matter  at  once.  Proph- 
ecy presupposes  the  law,  —  roots  itself  in  it,  and 
grows  out  of  it.  The  legal  and  formal  is  before  the 
spiritual  and  ideal,  not  in  the  mind  of  God,  but  in 
its  historical  realization.  Nevertheless,  since  the  his- 
tory of  modern  criticism  is  very  instructive  on  this 


PEUTERONOMY  AND   PRECEDING   BOOKS.       1 73 

special   point,  and   a  fair   exponent  of  its  unreliable 
character,  we  offer  a  few  remarks. 

I.  In  1 86 1  Dr.  Kuenen  gave  the  following  com- 
ment on  the  views  of  Von  Bohlen,  George,  and  Vatke, 
who  asserted  that  the  Deuteronomic  legislation  was 
earlier  than  that  of  the  middle  books  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch :  "He  [George]  assumes  that  the  histori- 
cal elements  of  the  Pentateuch  are  the  oldest,  that 
Deuteronomy  was  written  during  the  reign  of  Josiah, 
whilst  the  greater  part  of  the  laws  in  Plxodus- 
Numbers  did  not  exist  until  after  the  exile.  His 
arguments  are  partly  external,  partly  internal ;  i.e., 
derived  from  a  comparison  of  the  two  legislations, 
(i)  Jeremiah,  who  knows  Deuteronomy  and  makes 
frequent  use  of  it,  shows  no  acquaintance  with  the 
laws  in  Exodus-Numbers,  as  appears  from  chap.  vii. 
21-23,  where  he  appeals  to  Deut.  vii.  6,  xiv.  2,  xxvi. 
18,  but  ignores  the  whole  sacrificial  Thora.  But 
Jeremiah  could,  as  Hosea,  Psaiah,  and  other  proph- 
ets before  him,  exalt  the  moral  commands  of  the  law 
far  above  its  ceremonial  prescriptions,  and  consider 
the  former  as  the  real  basis  of  the  Covenant  with 
Jahveh,  without  the  implication  that  a  ceremonial 
Code  did  not  yet  exist  in  his  time  :  he  could  even 
pronounce  his  conviction,  that  the  laws  concerning 
burnt-offering  and  sacrifice  are  later  than  the  moral 
commands,  and  still  it  would  not  follow  from  this 
that  Exodus-Numbers  were  committed  to  writing 
later  than  Deuteronomy.  (2)  Internal  evidence.  The 
priority  of  Deuteronomy  is  argued  on  the  ground 
of  several  strange  assertions,  wJiicJi  are  not  zvoitJfy 
of  refiLtation  ;  to  wit,  that  before  the  Babylonish  cap- 


174         THE   PENrATEUCIIAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

tivity,  there  was  no  distinction  between  priests  and 
Levites,  high-priest  and  priests ;  that  the  Mosaic 
tabernacle  never  existed ;  that  the  spirit  and  ten- 
dency of  Deuteronomy  indicate  an  earUer  period 
than  those  of  Leviticus.  Deut.  xxxi.  14  is  consid- 
ered wholly  arbitrarily  as  a  later  addition  :  xviii.  2, 
xxiv.  8,  are  left  out  of  view.  The  view  of  George  in 
this  form  as  presented  by  him  has  been  almost  uni- 
versally rejected." 

So  far  Dr.  Kuenen.  The  quotation  is  instructive 
in  many  respects.  It  proves  :  {a)  That  a  critic  may 
proclaim  as  incontestable  truth  at  one  time  what,  a 
decade  before,  he  deemed  unworthy  of  refutation. 
(//)  That  he  may  use  the  same  statements  at  differ- 
ent times  to  establish  views  which  are  diametrically 
opposed  to  each  other  (this  with  regard  to  Deut. 
xviii.  2,  xxiv.  8).  {c)  That  he  may  propose,  as  a 
reasonable  explanation  of  certain  phenomena,  what 
he  condemns  afterwards  as  uncritical  dogmatism  in 
others  (this  with  regard  to  Jeremiah),  {d)  That  so 
long  as  his  mind  is  unbiassed  by  preconceived  philo- 
sophical theories,  he  may  find  the  postulates  of  his 
own  later  philosophy  absurd,  {c)  That  consequently 
his  theory  is  not  determined  by  the  facts,  but  that 
the  facts  are  colored  by  a  theory  framed  independ- 
ently of  them,  and  afterwards  imposed  upon  them. 

2.  This  is  not  the  only  instance,  however,  in  which 
criticism  has  itself  closed  the  way  to  its  own  later 
development,  which  it  was  not  far-sighted  enough  to 
discern  sufficiently  long  in  advance.  It  is  well  known 
that  Graf  in  1866,  five  years  after  the  appearance 
of  Kuenen's  introduction,  declared  the  lecfislation  of 


DEUTEKON'OMY  AND   PRECEDING  BOOKS.      1 75 

the  middle  books  posterior  to  that  of  Deuteronomy. 
Connected  with  this  was  the  statement  that  Deu- 
teronomy presupposed  not  only  the  Jehovistic,  but 
{a  potiori)  also  the  Elohistic,  narrative.  Pp.  9-19 
of  Graf's  book  contain  an  elaborate  argument  to 
prove  that  the  narrative  of  the  Elohist  in  Exodus- 
Numbers  was  known  and  used  by  the  Deuterono- 
mist.  It  was  shown  no  less  in  detail  that  the 
Deuteronomist  did  not  know  the  Levitical  Code.  It 
was  evident,  however,  that  in  the  Elohistic  docu- 
ment, narrative  and  legislation  were  so  indissolubly 
blended,  that  even  the  most  daring  critic  could  not 
sever  them.  This  state  of  affairs  was  soon  realized. 
Kuenen  immediately  discovered  the  weak  point  in 
Grafs  hypothesis,  and  called  his  attention  to  it  in  a 
letter.  Now,  when  two  mutually  inconsistent  propo- 
sitions have  been  independently  established  by  an 
elaborate  survey  of  facts,  the  natural  suggestion 
would  be,  to  reject  the  whole  process  of  criticism, 
that  had  led  to  such  results,  as  unreliable.  Instead 
of  doing  this,  however,  Kuenen  advises  Graf  to  ex- 
tend his  hypothesis  to  the  narrative  of  the  Elohist 
also.  This  advice  was  followed  ;  and  out  came  the 
present  theory  of  Wellhausen,  Kuenen,  etc.  We 
ask  what  has  become  in  the  mean  while  of  Graf's 
arguments  apparently  so  conclusive,  that  the  Elohis- 
tic narrative  was  known  to  Deuteronomy.?  Have 
they  been  carefully  reviewed }  Not  in  the  least. 
Dr.  Kuenen  simply  declares  it  necessary,  that  either 
the  laws  should  follow  history,  or  history  follow  the 
laws.  Here,  however,  criticism  has  denied  its  own 
principles.     Whosoever  claims  to  argue  from  facts,  is 


176         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

not  allowed  to  discard  one  of  his  conclusions  to  save 
another.  If  two  conclusions  are  mutually  exclusive, 
then  nothing  remains  but  to  declare  the  whole  argu- 
ment invalid.  We  have  exactly  the  same  right  to 
ignore  Graf's  proofs  that  the  Deuteronomist  shows 
no  acquaintance  with  the  Levitical  law,  in  order  to 
recognize  merely  his  arguments  that  he  knew  the 
Elohistic  narrative,  and  then,  after  the  innocent  re- 
mark that  the  laws  must  follow  history,  to  consider 
the  pre-Deuteronomic  existence  of  the  whole  Priest 
Code  established.  But  the  idea  of  one  thing  "  fol- 
lowing" the  other  has  no  legitimate  place  in  the 
sphere  of  criticism. 

When  placed  in  the  light  of  the  two  facts  just 
mentioned,  the  following  considerations  obtain  a 
double  force  :  — 

1.  The  fact  that  Deuteronomy,  on  the  whole,  at- 
taches itself  to  the  Jehovistic  Code,  is  no  proof  that 
the  Levitical  law  did  not  then  exist.  The  Covenant- 
law  furnished  the  real  basis  for  the  Covenant  between 
God  and  the  people.  It  is  no  more  than  natural  that 
Deuteronomy,  wishing  to  bring  out  the  fundamental 
ideas  of  this  Covenant-relation  in  their  spiritual 
bearing  upon  the  popular  life,  should  go  back  to 
the  Code  in  which  they  were  already  germinally 
contained. 

2.  Whilst,  in  most  cases,  it  is  difficult  to  decide 
how  two  laws  stand  related  to  each  other,  it  is  quite 
different  with  history.  One  clearly  stated  proof  that 
the  Deuteronomist  knew  the  narrative  of  the  Elohist, 
is  enough  to  settle  the  matter.  But  numerous  proofs 
have  been  given  by  Graf  and  others.     It  is  therefore 


DEUTERONOMY  AND   PRECEDING   BOOKS.      I'J'J 

safer  to  abandon  the  ambiguous  method  of  ascertain- 
ing the  relative  age  of  two  laws  by  a  comparison  of 
their  contents,  and  to  adhere  to  the  results  obtained 
from  history,  than  the  reverse. 

3.  {a)  There  are  some  indications,  however,  that 
Deuteronomy  knows  the  Elohistic  legislation.  Atten- 
tion has  been  called  by  the  critics  from  a  stylistic 
point  of  view  to  the  frequent  combinations  of  r^'ipn 
{statutes),  r^iyp  {cominandnicnts),  D'psiyp  {judgments), 
x\y\T\  {lazv),  nn>^  {testimojiy).  When  we  remember 
that  the  statutes  of  the  Covenant-law  are  pre-emi- 
nently called  D'p3L!/p  {judgments),  Exod.  xxi.  i,  and 
that  the  other  terms  are  predominantly  used  of  the 
Levitical  legislation,  then  their  combination  in  Deu- 
teronomy becomes  highly  significant.  Besides,  it 
gives  us  the  impression  that  the  author  of  the  latter 
had  a  voluminous  body  of  law  in  mind,  to  which  he 
referred  the  people.  It  is  unnatural  to  refer  the 
terms  he  uses  to  the  scanty  contents  of  the  Jehovis- 
tic  Code  (Exod.  xiii.,  xx.-xxiii.,  xxxiv.). 

{b)  The  two  laws  (Lev.  xi.  and  Deut.  xiv.  3-21)  are 
so  similar  in  language  and  contents,  that  their  inter- 
dependence cannot  be  doubted.  Graf  assigns  the 
priority  to  Deuteronomy.  This  view  is  at  once  over- 
thrown by  the  consideration  that  the  language  is 
Elohistic,  and  is  accordingly  in  its  place  in  the  Priest 
Code,  and  out  of  place  in  Deuteronomy.  Graf  seeks 
to  relieve  this  difficulty  by  assuming  that  both  the 
Elohist  and  the  Deuteronomist  drew  from  an  older 
source,  but  there  is  not  the  least  ground  for  this 
assumption.  And  how  this  older  source  came  to 
possess  such  a  remarkable  resemblance  in  language 


1/8  THE    PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

and  contents  to  the  Priest  Code  of  much  later  date, 
remains  a  profound  mystery.  Moreover,  the  origi- 
nahty  in  the  Priest  Code  is  clear,  because  the  refer- 
ence to  the  touching  of  a  dead  carcass  does  not 
coincide  with  the  plan  of  Deuteronomy,  which  is 
only  to  give  law  about  clean  and  unclean  food,  but 
agrees  perfectly  with  the  plan  of  the  Priest  Code, 
which  is  to  treat  of  every  kind  of  defilement. 

(r)  Other  cases  of  interdependence  in  which  the 
priority  of  Leviticus  is  clear  are  Lev.  xix.  19  =  Deut. 
xxii.  9-1 1,  Lev.  xix.  13  —  Deut.  xxiv.  14,  Lev.  xix. 
35  =:  Deut.  XXV.  13-16. 

{d)  That  Deuteronomy  alludes  to  the  priesthood  of 
Aaron  and  Eleazar  (x.  6),  to  the  Urim  and  Thummim 
(xxxiii.  8),  and  to  the  priestly  inheritance  (x.  9,  xii. 
12,  xiv.  27,  29,  xviii.  i),  has  been  pointed  out  before. 

{c)  The  passages,  Deut.  xxiv.  8,  and  xxxi.  14,  are 
even  by  Dr.  Kuenen  admitted  as  proof  for  the  prior- 
ity of  Leviticus.  When  Kayser  sees  no  reference  in 
the  former  passage  to  the  law  of  leprosy  in  Lev.  xiii., 
xiv.,  but  assumes  that  some  other  law  may  have  been 
alluded  to  just  as  well,  this  other  law  exists  only  in 
his  imagination,  and  there  is  not  the  slightest  trace 
of  its  actual  existence. 

(/)  A  comparison  of  Deut.  xxviii.  with  Lev.  xxvi. 
will  show  that  the  Deuteronomist  knew  the  latter 
discourse,  or  rather  that  both  proceeded  from  the 
same  author ;  in  which  case  the  priority  of  the  chap- 
ter in  Leviticus  as  the  shorter  one  is,  of  course, 
beyond  dispute. 

(yg)  Lev.  xvii.  and  Deut.  xii.  leave  no  doubt,  both 
as  to  their  mutual  relation  and  their  Mosaic  origin. 


DEL'TERONOMY  AND   PRECEDING   BOOKS.      I  79 

Without  the  Levitical  law  being  presupposed,  that  in 
Deuteronomy  could  have  no  meaning.  Deuteronomy 
here  abolishes  in  the  fortieth  year  what  the  Priest 
Code  had  enacted  in  the  second.  The  same  relation 
exists  between  Deut.  iv.  41,  xix.  1-13,  and  Num. 
XXXV.,  treating  of  the  cities  of  refuge. 

{Ji)  A  reference  to  the  ark  in  chap.  x.  i  points  back 
to  Exod.  XXV.  10. 

4.  All  these  cases,  in  which  Deuteronomy  makes 
short,  incomplete,  and  evidently  supplementary  state- 
ments in  regard  to  matters  not  treated  by  the  Jeho- 
vist,  are  so  many  proofs  of  the  priority  of  the  Priest 
Code. 

5.  It  was  generally  acknowledged  that  Deuteron- 
omy throughout  presupposes  the  Levitical  legislation, 
until  theoretical  bias  obliged  the  critics  to  deny  it. 
Even  a  man  like  De  Wette  once  declared,  "Deutero- 
paK),ium  prigribus  libris  tamquam  fundamento  nitiv^^*-^-^'-^ 
quaevis  paglna  docet."  '--^-j*^ 


l80         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 


CHAPTER    XIV. 

INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  FOR  THE  MOSAIC  ORIGIN  OF  THE 
DEUTERONOiMIC  CODE. 

'  TT^E  have  come  to  the  conclusion,  that,  whilst  the 
V  V     unity  of  the  Codes  is  vouched  for  by  all  evi- 
j  dence   that  can   be  reasonably  demanded,  the  argu- 
!  ments  adduced  against  it,  when  considered   each  on 
;  its  own  merits,  cannot  stand  the  test  of  a  fair  criti- 
cism.    We  could  sum  up  the  result  in  the  statement, 
that   the   newest  phase  of  Pentateuch-criticism   pre- 
sents no  theory,  but  merely  a  hypothesis,  one  of  the 
many  ways  of  accounting  for  a  number  of  facts..     We 
believe  that  w^e  have  shown  that  the  old  hypothesis, 
if  we  may  indeed  call  it  so,  accounts  for  these  facts 
just  as  well  as  the  new  one,  and  in  many  respects 
better. 

But  it  is  not  a  matter  of  indifference  which  of  the 
two  hypotheses  we  shall  choose.  For  whilst  the  new 
one  must  stand  or  fall  on  the  mere  merits  of  its 
plausibility  and  applicability,  the  old  one  has  all  the 
advantage  of  the  direct  testimony  of  the  law  itself, 
which  lifts  it  out  of  the  category  of  hypotheses,  so 
that  it  becomes  a  theory  founded  on  such  facts  as 
will  admit  no  other  interpretation. 

For  the   whole   Deuteronomic   Code,  we    have    in 


MOSAIC   ORIGIN  OF  DEUTERONOMIC   CODE.      l8l 

chap.  xxxi.  9,  24,  the  expHcit  testimony,  that  it  was 
not  only  promulgated,  but  committed  to  writing,  by 
Moses  himself.  With  this  statement,  to  be  sure, 
nothing  is  decided  as  to  the  authorship  of  Deuter- 
onomy as  a  whole.  We  may  have  our  peculiar  views, 
like  Delitzsch  and  Kleinert,  with  regard  to  the  com- 
position of  the  book  as  a  whole,  and  still  agree  on 
the  fact,  that  Moses  actually  delivered  these  dis- 
courses. The  only  question  that  must  be  considered 
here,  is  whether  the  statements  in  ver.  9  and  24  do, 
or  do  not,  refer  to  the  whole  Pentateuch.  On  this 
point,  there  is  considerable  difference  of  opinion. 
Hengstenberg,  Havernick,  Keil,  Schultz,  etc.,  extend 
them  to  the  whole  Pentateuch,  with  the  exception  of 
the  closing  sections  of  Deuteronomy.  Delitzsch, 
Kurtz,  and,  of  course,  the  whole  host  of  modern 
critics,  limit  them  to  the  legal  discourses  of  Deuter- 
onomy. The  latter  view  seems  to  be  the  most  plau- 
sible one,  for  the  following  reasons  :  — 

I.  The  passages  xxix.  19,  26,  xix.  10,  xxx.  20,  xxviii. 
58,  61,  suffer  no  other  interpretation  than  that  they 
refer  to  the  Deuteronomic  Code.  From  analogy 
we  would  expect  the  same  to  be  intended  here. 
Schultz  admits  this,  but,  since  Deuteronomy  proper 
does  not  extend  beyond  chap,  xxx.,  claims  that  the 
rest  is  wTitten  as  a  closing  section  of  the  whole 
Thora,  and  may  accordingly  refer  to  it  as  a  whole. 
If  such  were  the  case,  however,  we  w^ould  naturally 
first  expect  a  direct  statement  that  Moses  committed 
Deuteronomy  to  writing,  before  it  could  be  tacitly 
included  under  the  general  term  of  the  Thora  as  a 
written  whole.    As  this  is  nowhere  found,  and  xxxi.  i 


1 82  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

speaks    simply    of    Moses    having   spoken    all    these 
words,  we  must  seek  it  in  ver.  9  and  24. 

2.  It  is  not  impossible,  still  it  is  improbable,  that 
the  delivering  of  this  law  mentioned  in  ver.  26  was 
a  mere  symbolic  act,  as  the  other  view  implies. 

3.  It  was  the  special  duty  of  the  priests  to  pre- 
serve the  law,  and  more  specially  the  Levitical  law 
was  intrusted  to  them.  We  must  therefore  suppose 
that  the  latter  had  been  delivered  to  them  long  be- 
fore. If  it  be  said  that  this  may  have  been  a  mere 
copy  of  the  Code,  but  that  now  the  historical  work 
of  the  Pentateuch  was  handed  to  them,  we  may 
answer  that  this  analogy  makes  it  only  the  more 
probable,  that  also  the  Deuteronomic  Code  was  at 
first  put  into  their  hands  separately  without  its  his- 
torical frame. 

4.  The  passage  xxix.  i  shows  that  the  Covenant 
made  in  the  fields  of  IMoab  is  considered  as  a  sepa- 
rate one,  distinct  from  that  contracted  at  Horeb. 
There  is  no  reason,  then,  to  deny,  that,  according 
to  the  analogy  of  i"^5<Tn  nnan  {tJiis  covenant),  also 
l^^^^r\  rr\ST\r\  {this  /azu)  means  simply  the  Deuterono- 
mic law. 

5.  Josh.  viii.  32  can  hardly  mean  that  the  whole 
Pentateuch  was  written  in  stones  on  Mount  Ebal. 
Keil  claims  that  the  expression  used  in  Deut.  xxvii. 
2,  8,  "All  the  commandments,  which  I  command  you 
this  day,"  is  clearly  intended  to  indicate,  that  /icj'e 
the  whole  Pentateuch  is  not  meant,  and  that  for  this 
reason  it  does  not  decide  any  thing  for  the  less 
explicit  statements  in  other  passages.  But  chap, 
xxviii.  I   shows  that  the  addition  of  "this  day"  can- 


MOSAIC   ORIGIN  OF  DEUTERONOMIC   CODE.      1 83 

not  have  been  made  for  this  special  purpose.  We 
have,  therefore,  a  right  to  consider  the  passages  where 
it  is  found  as  parallel  to  all  the  others,  and  find  in 
them  a  confirmation  of  our  view  that  also  the  latter 
speak  only  of  the  Deuteronomic  Code. 

It  appears,  then,  that,  from  Deut.  xxxi.  9,  24,  no 
direct  argument  for  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  other 
Codes  can  be  obtained.  It  does  contain,  however, 
an  indirect  testimony.  If  the  Deuteronomic  dis- 
courses were  committed  to  writing  immediately  after 
their  deliverance,  we  may  infer  a  potiori,  that  Moses 
did  the  same  with  regard  to  the  previous  laws. 
That  such  was  his  custom,  as  it  was  the  last  thought 
at  the  end  of  his  life,  shows  how  much  he  laid  to 
heart  the  careful  preservation  of  the  Codes. 

Since  the  modern  critics  find  themselves  at  liberty 
to  disbelieve  this  explicit  self-testimony  of  the  Deu- 
teronomic Code,  there  should  be  a  strong  weight 
of  evidence  to  the  contrary.  Before  we  proceed  to 
•  examine  this,  it  is  important  to  realize  fully  what 
such  a  disbelief  involves  ;  for  on  it  will  depend  how 
much  contrary  evidence  we  demand  in  order  to  be 
convinced. 

The  term  *' literary  fiction"  has  found  large  ac- 
ceptance with  the  critics  to  designate  their  pre- 
tended origin  of  Deuteronomy.  It  does  not  fully 
suit  the  case,  however.  Again  and  again,  critics  have 
been  anxious  to  remind  us  that  the  ideas  of  literary 
property  were  not  so  developed  in  antiquity  as  they 
are  in  our  days.  The  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  present- 
ing itself  to  us  as  the  work  of  Moses,  has  been  com- 
pared to  a  parable ;  and  Robertson  Smith  declares, 


184         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

that  it  matters  little  ''whether  these  things  were 
spoken  by  I\Ioses  literally,  or  in  a  parable."  Dr. 
Kuenen,  at  least,  is  fair  enough  to  confess  that  the 
fiction  of  the  Deuteronomist  cannot  be  defended 
from  our  stand-point  of  morality,  but  hastens  to  add, 
that  a  writer  in  the  time  of  Manasseh  cannot  be 
measured  by  our  moral  standard.  We  must  ac- 
knowledge, he  says,  that  such  a  pia  fraiis  was  in 
those  days  quite  consistent  with  a  high  degree  of 
religious  development. 

Before  proceeding  farther,  we  must  distinguish 
between  a  literary  fiction  and  a  legal  forgery.  When 
Riehm  draws  a  parallel  between  Ecclesiastes  and 
Deuteronomy,  and  then  puts  the  question,  ''  Why 
should  we  grant  this  liberty  to  the  philosopher,  and 
deny  it  to  the  lawgiver  and  prophet }  "  he  has  him- 
self already  intimated  the  answer  that  should  be 
given  to  such  questions.  Suppose  that  Ecclesiastes 
were  a  literary  fiction,  still  we  could  not  blame 
the  author  for  having  introduced  his  work  under 
the  name  of  Solomon,  because  the  fictitious  charac- 
ter was  not  concealed,  but  intended  to  be  under- 
stood and  appreciated.  On  the  other  hand,  there 
is  every  possible  proof  that  the  author  of  Deuter- 
onomy wished  his  work  to  pass  for  the  genuine  work 
of  Moses.  The  element  of  ''falsehood"  would  be 
surely  involved  here.  Most  decisive  in  this  respect 
is  his  statement  that  Moses  ivrotc  this  law ;  also 
the  fact  that  he  docs  not  allow  any  additions  or  sub- 
tractions or  modifications  to  be  made  in  what  he 
gives  as  the  words  of  Moses,  iv.  2,  xii.  32.  How 
can   we    free    from   the   charge   of  deceit,   him   who 


MOSAIC   ORIGIN  OF  DEUTERONOMIC   CODE.       1 85 

condemns  most  emphatically  in  his  book  a  practice 
of  which  the  book  itself  was  the  product  ?  Further, 
the  writer  of  Ecclesiastes  would  have  giv^en  nothing 
more  than  subjective  human  speculation,  under  the 
authority  of  Solomon,  since  he  need  not  have  had  the 
intention  of  foisting  his  book  into  the  Canon.  But 
the  Deuteronomist  applied  his  fictitious  methods  in 
the  sphere  of  divine  authoritative  law,  and  knew,  if 
he  succeeded,  that  the  first  result  of  his  success 
would  be  a  deception  of  men  in  their  most  holy 
interests,  an  adulteration  of  the  Canon,  and  in  its 
ultimate  analysis  an  encroachment  upon  God's  sov- 
ereign right  to  prescribe  law  to  Israel.  It  would  be 
necessary  to  think  that  the  times  of  Manasseh  and 
Josiah  were  like  the  nineteenth  century,  when  those 
initiated  into  the  secrets  of  criticism  do  not  hesitate 
to  laugh  contemptuously  within  the  walls  of  their 
schools  at  the  superstition  of  God's  common  peo- 
ple, who  still  cling  to  the  antiquated  notion  of  the 
Mosaic  origin  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  writer  of 
Deuteronomy  must  have  had  some  resemblance  to 
our  present  heroes  of  Old-Testament  science,  who 
for  themselves  having  long  outgrown  the  traditional 
notions,  still,  out  of  the  fulness  of  their  benevolence, 
are  willing  to  leave  the  less  instructed  class  a  kind 
of  regulative  knowledge.  It  is  exceedingly  sadden- 
ing in  the  present  state  of  the  question,  whilst  the 
one  alternative  is  '^ fraud,''  that  even  a  man  like  Dr. 
Delitzsch  declares  that  the  Church  at  larsre  has  no 

o 

interest  in  the  Pentateuch  question,  and  ought  not 
to  have.  It  is  no  longer  the  time  to  mislead  our- 
selves by  unmeaning  phrases.     The  Church  has  an 


1 86         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

interest  in  this  matter.  If  she  has  been  deceived 
by  the  Deiiteronomist  more  than  twenty-five  cen- 
turies ago,  it  is  more  than  time  that  she  knew  it 
now.  With  Dr.  Kuenen  we  say  it  is  "  either  one 
thing  or  the  other,"  and  every  attempt  at  compro- 
mise involves  a  concession  to  our  opponents. 

Before  we  hear  the  grounds  on  which  critics  think 
themselves  justified  in  assuming  this  terrible  fraud, 
let  us  survey  the  indirect  testimony  of  Deuteronomy 
to  its  Mosaic  origin. 

1.  The  time  in  which  the  author  speaks  is  evi- 
dently the  later  part  of  Moses'  life.  The  people 
appear  to  be  on  the  point  of  crossing  the  Jordan, 
the  conquest  of  Canaan  is  promised  as  the  reward  of 
fidelity  to  Jehovah,  the  people  are  encouraged  not  to 
dread  the  Canaanites,  commanded  to  extirpate  the 
Canaanites,  etc.     To  quote  passages  is  superfluous. 

2.  The  author  shows  intimate  acquaintance  with 
the  geographical  condition  of  the  country  in  which 
Israel  received  this  law.  Whilst  his  statements  con- 
cerning the  eastern  side  of  the  Jordan  betray  by 
their  minuteness  and  accuracy  an  eye-witness,  those 
concerning  the  west  side  are  general  throughout. 

3.  When  Riehm  and  others  ascribe  all  this  to  the 
endeavor  of  the  Deuteronomist  to  make  his  work 
pass  for  that  of  Moses,  all  the  evidence  is  against 
them.  For  {a)  The  information  concerning  the  Mosaic 
period  is  in  part  new,  not  contained  in  the  previous 
books  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  and  there  is  no  proof  that 
the  Deuteronomist  used  other  sources,  {b)  The  his- 
tory, though  conforming  to  that  of  Exodus-Numbers, 
is  remodelled  with  a  freedom  that  nobody  would  havp 


MOSAIC   ORIGIN  OF  DEUTERONOMIC   CODE.       1 8/ 

allowed  himself  to  use  in  post-Mosaic  times,  least  of 
all  a  writer  who  wished  to  authenticate  his  work  with 
the  impress  of  a  genuine  Mosaic  character,  and  who 
everywhere  proclaims  the  sacred,  inviolable  charac- 
ter of  the  Mosaic  law.  {c)  It  should  be  noticed,  that 
all  these  references  to  the  Mosaic  period  present 
themselves  as  natural  and  unintentional.  If  we  had 
to  assume  that  they  were  interwoven  with  a  purpose, 
we  would  expect  them  to  be  more  explicit,  promi- 
nent, and  emphatic. 

4.  Though  Deuteronomy  presupposes  throughout 
the  possession  of  the  promised  land,  the  point  of 
view  is  never  lost,  that  the  conquest  is  still  future. 
The  possibility  of  fiction  is  precluded  here  by  the 
promise  of  extended  territory  (xi.  24,  "From  Leba- 
non, from  Euphrates,  unto  the  uttermost  sea"),  such 
as  even  the  most  visionary  expectations  of  later  times 
could  not  have  aspired  to.  How  could  a  contemporary 
of  King  Manasseh  or  Josiah  say,  *'  From  the  river 
Euphrates  shall  your  coast  be,"  without  exposing 
himself  to  ridicule  t 

5.  Retrospectively  the  Code  contains  many  refer- 
ences to  the  sojourn  in  Egypt  of  such  a  character  as 
only  the  national  consciousness  in  the  Mosaic  period 
could  understand  or  appreciate.  Memory  of  the 
Egyptian  bondage  is  made  an  incentive  to  kind  treat- 
ment of  servants  and  strangers.  The  book  is  full  of 
Egyptian  reminiscences  (xi.  10,  xx.  i,  xxiii.  4,  7,  xxiv. 
22).  The  modern  criticism  has  attributed  all  this  to 
mercantile  intercourse  with  Egypt.  Apart  from  the 
fact,  that  in  this  case  the  allusions  would  have  been 
more  direct  and  intentional,  the  explanation  is  only  a 


1 88  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

partial  one.  Mercantile  intercourse  was  not  adapted 
to  make  the  reminder  of  Egyptian  servitude  a  forcible 
incentive  to  humane  treatment  of  servants.  Neither 
would  it  account  for  historical  coincidences,  since 
there  is  no  proof  that  intercourse  with  Egypt  led 
to  a  professional  study  of  Egyptian  history  and  an- 
tiquities. 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  1 89 


CHAPTER    XV. 

OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

A  LL  this,  however,  is  most  daringly  rejected  by 
±\-  the  critics,  as  the  product  of  a  legal  fiction 
which  took  to  itself  a  Mosaic  dress,  thus  to  have 
better  opportunity  of  imposing  upon  the  people. 
Though  there  is  some  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the 
exact  date  of  composition,  all  agree  that  it  is  a  Re- 
form Code  prepared  in  the  days  of  the  later  Judaic 
kings.  De  Wette,  Knobel,  Schrader,  Kayser,  assign 
it  to  the  reign  of  Josiah  ;  Ewald,  Bleek,  Kuenen,  to 
that  of  Manasseh  ;  Riehm,  who  also  first  declared 
himself  in  favor  of  the  second  half  of  Manasseh's 
reign,  afterwards  changed  his  opinion,  and  preferred 
the  time  of  Hezekiah.  A  peculiar  view  is  held  by 
Stahelin  and  Kleinert,  that  it  was  written  during  the 
period  of  the  Judges. 

When  we  ask  for  the  proof  of  all  this,  it  is  arrayed 
before  us  in  a  series  of  propositions.  Riehm's  treatise 
affords  a  fair  example  of  the  common  method.  He 
proves  in  succession  :  i.* Deuteronomy  is  not  Mosaic, 
but  written  a  considerable  time  after  the  conquest  of 
Canaan.  2.  After  the  reign  of  ^lomon.  3.  Not 
before  that  of  Jehoshaphat.  4.  Not  before  that  of 
Hezekiah.     5.  In  the  second  half   of   the  reign   of 


IQO  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

Manasseh,  between  66j  and  640.  All  which  is  in- 
ferred from  internal  evidence  and  corresponding  facts 
in  history  during  the  period  of  the  Kings. 

That  this  method  of  determining  the  date  of  origin 
of  a  prophetical  book  involves  a  denial  of  its  super- 
natural character,  is  obvious.  When  Deuteronomy 
prohibits  exactly  those  things  in  which  Solomon 
transgressed,  it  is  claimed  that  there  must  be  a 
vaticiniiiin  ex  cvcntn.  So  far  as  these  assertions  pro- 
ceed on  the  denial  of  the  supernatural  element  in 
the  history  of  Israel,  no  common  ground  of  debate 
is  left  between  us  and  the  critics. 

But  there  are  others,  like  Riehm  and  Kayser,  who 
recognize  the  supernatural  element,  and  profess  to 
derive  their  conclusions,  not  from  an  a  priori  philoso- 
phy, but  from  critical  premises.  Between  them  and 
us  the  question  is  reduced  to  the  simple  statement, 
whether  these  utterances  of  Deuteronomy  exhibit 
the  internal  character  of  vaticinia  ex  eventu,  or  of 
real  inspired  prophecies. 

Let  us  consider  the  law  of  the  kingdom  first. 
Chap.  xvii.  14-20  offers  several  points  of  contact 
with  Solomon's  reign  :  i.  Multiplication  of  horses,  ver. 
16.  2.  Multiplication  of  wives,  ver.  17.^  3.  Of  sil- 
ver and  gold,  ver.  ly^  These  points  would  certainly 
have  some  force  to  convince  us,  if  it  could  be  shown 
that  Solomon's  conduct  in  this  respect  was  excep- 
tional and  distinct  from  what  Eastern  monarchs  were 
a-ccustomed  to  do.  If  not,  there  is  no  reason  why 
Moses  should  not  have  dreaded  for  a  king  of  Israel, 
what  was  prevailing  at  all  Oriental  courts,  and  hit 
upon    exactly    those   vices    which   foreign    influence 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  I9I 

afterwards  tempted  Solomon  to  imitate,  in  spite  of 
the  Deuteronomic  law.  That  the  author  of  i  Kings 
X.  26-29,  xi.  2,  uses  nearly  the  same  terms  as  Deu- 
teronomy, does  not  prove  that  the  latter  merely  copied 
the  facts.  The  author  of  Kings  may  just  as  well 
have  clothed  the  facts  in  Deuteronomic  language. 
When  Riehm  objects  that  he  evidently  describes 
with  admiration  and  approval  the  liixiLS  of  Solomon's 
courts,  and  hence  was  not  acquainted  with  the  disap- 
proval and  condemnation  of  the  law,  this  sounds 
strano:e  in  the  mouth  of  a  critic  who  declares  in  a 
footnote,  that  the  writer  of  Kings  did  not  live  before 
the  exile.  Then,  he  must  have  known  Deuteronomy, 
after  all ;  and  w^hat  becomes  of  the  argument  from 
approval  or  admiration  t 

The  narrative  of  i  Sam.  viii.  has  also  been  used, 
or  rather  abused,  to  deny  the  authenticity  of  this  law. 
What  is  there  condemned,  is  here  commanded.  But 
such  a  summary  statement  leaves  out  of  account  sev- 
eral facts.  First  of  all,  Deuteronomy  does  not  com- 
mand, but  merely  allows,  the  institution  of  the  kingly 
office.  It  does  this  with  certain  restrictions  touching 
the  points  which  would  tend  to  make  the  office  an 
object  of  national  pride,  derogatory  to  the  honor  of 
God,  to  whom  alone  such  glory  was  due  among 
Israel.  The  passage  bears  all  the  evidence  of  being 
a  restrictive  law.  In  one  sense  a  kingdom  is  per- 
mitted, but  evidently  this  permission  is  but  subsidi- 
ary to  the  prohibition  of  it  in  another  sense.  It  is 
clearly  stated  what  the  Israelites  would  be  allowed 
to  have,  in  order  to  bring  out  more  emphatically  and 
distinctly  what  they  would  not  be  allowed  to  desire. 


192  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

So,  whilst  there  is  no  command  in  either  sense,  the 
whole  is  equivalent  to  a  prohibition  in  the  one  sense. 
The  restrictions  stated  constitute  the  very  essence 
of  kingly  pride  among  the  heathen  nations  of  the 
East.  Considered  in  this  light,  the  Deuteronomic 
law  not  merely  does  not  contradict,  but  strikingly  con- 
firms, the  narrative  in  Samuel.  The  people  desired 
exactly  that  kind  of  royalty  which  the  Code  pro- 
hibited, and  from  the  very  motive  which  the  law  con- 
demned. Because  the  nation  wished  to  transfer  the 
national  pride  which  it  should  have  had  in  God  alone 
to  an  earthly  monarch,  the  spirit  of  the  law  was  vio- 
lated, even  though  the  transgressors  dared  to  quote 
its  letter  in  their  favor.  That  other  causes  co-oper- 
ated with  this  to  make  the  desire  sinful,  is  not  denied. 
Schultz  has  discussed  the  matter  very  thoroughly, 
thousfh  he  seems  to  seek  the  solution  rather  in  a 
peculiar  interpretation  of  i  Sam.  viii.  than  of  Deu- 
teronomy. 

The  law  presents  no  features  which  are  not  fully 
consistent  with  its  Mosaic  origin.  But  it  contains 
some  statements  which  are  inconsistent  with  a  later 
origin.  The  following  may  be  noted  :  {a)  The  pro- 
hibition to  confer  royal  authority  upon  a  stranger, 
ver.  15.  For  this  the  whole  post-Mosaic  period  offers 
no  single  point  of  contact.  What  Professor  Robert- 
son Smith  adduces,  rests  on  the  misinterpretation 
of  an  isolated  passage,  Isa.  vii.  6.  {b)  The  reminis- 
cence of  Egyptian  servitude,  ver.  16.  How  the  mul- 
tiplication of  horses  could  tend  to  make  the  people 
return  to  Egypt,  has  never  yet  been  satisfactorily  ex- 
plained on  the  critical  hypothesis.     Riehm's  explana- 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  1 93 

tion,  together  with  his  view  of  the  passage  xxviii.  6'^, 
rests  on  ingenious  but  unwarranted  combinations,  by 
which  more  is  assumed  than  history  has  recorded. 
{c)  If  this  law  had  been  forged  in  a  time  when  the 
kingly  office  had  existed  for  many  centuries,  it  is 
impossible  that  no  more  definite  and  concrete  state- 
ments should  have  been  made. 

The  same  remarks  apply  to  the  institution  of 
Tudo-es,  and  of  what  the  critics  would  call  a  supreme 
court  (Deut.  xvii.  8-13).  Both  are  the  necessary  re- 
sult of  the  people  being  scattered  over  the  land  im- 
mediately after  the  conquest.  Here  also  the  critics 
have  substituted  for  this  very  natural  interpretation 
an  extremely  forced  one.  They  claim  that  Deuter- 
onomy gives  only  the  abstract  statement  of  what 
Jehoshaphat  had  introduced  in  the  concrete.  But 
law  and  history  conflict  in  so  many  points,  that  only  a 
superficial  acquaintance  with  both  can  make  the  one 
the  reflex  of  the  other.  The  following  are  essential 
differences  :  {a)  Deuteronomy  presents  as  future  what 
under  King  Josiah  had  already  existed  for  a  considera- 
ble time,  {b)  What  Jehoshaphat  instituted  was  really 
a  supreme  court,  consisting  of  Levites  and  laymen, 
with  two  presidents,  —  the  high-priest  Amariah,  and 
Zebadiah  the  son  of  Ishmael.  Deuteronomy  knows 
nothing  of  this  :  the  judge  in  ver.  9  is  only  the  occa- 
sional president  at  the  local  court  at  the  seat  of  the 
sanctuary,  and  he  owes  his  right  of  decision  in  cases 
of  appeal  to  his  benefit  of  priestly  assistance  and 
instruction.  The  high-priest  in  ver.  12  is  not  intro- 
duced as  such,  but  merely  in  his  priestly  capacity,  to 
indicate  that  his  assistance  was  not  a  matter  of  judi- 


194         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

cature,  but  of  instruction,  (r)  The  absence  of  con- 
crete and  detailed  statements  is  here  also  a  strono- 
testimony  against  later  origin. 

As  the  law  of  the  kingdom  does  not  warrant  us  in 
bringing  Deuteronomy  down  to  Solomon's  time,  so 
that  of  the  Judges  does  not  prove  its  origin  during 
or  after  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat.  More  general, 
but  most  whimsical  and  worthless  of  all,  is  the  argu- 
ment derived  from  the  promises  in  chap,  xviii.,  that 
prophets  like  Moses  would  succeed  him,  and  specially 
the  reference  to  false  prophets  from  ver.  20  onward. 
By  remanding  all  this  to  a  later  time,  we  take  away 
the  only  basis  on  which  to  rest  prophecy.  The 
eminent  position  and  undisputed  authority  of  later 
prophetism  become  a  mystery  when  the  law  had 
made  no  provision  for  both.  This  is  an  apt  illustra- 
tion of  the  untenable  positions  to  which  the  critical 
theories  lead.  If,  as  has  been  customary  of  late, 
prophecy  is  not  considered  as  the  fruit  and  interpre- 
ter of  law,  but  law  as  the  petrifaction  of  prophecy, 
the  latter  of  necessity  comes  to  hang  in  the  air.  The 
reference  to  false  prophets,  if  it  proves  any  thing, 
will  prove  against  the  later  origin.  In  ver.  22  the 
people  are  exhorted  not  to  be  afraid  of  them, 
li^p  iijn  '^.  In  what  a  contrast  does  this  supposed 
denunciatory  character  of  the  false  prophets  stand  to 
the  later  reality  !  (compare  i  Kings  xxii.  22,  seqq.  ; 
Isa.  ix.  15;  XXX.  10;  Jer.  xiv.  13,  14).  Another  feature 
which  forbids  us  to  think  that  the  author  had  the 
development  of  prophetism  behind  him,  is  the  prom- 
ise that  the  prophets  would  be  like  unto  Moses.  So 
only  God  and  Moses  could  speak.     None  of  the  later 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  1 95 

prophets  ever  thought  of  claiming  equality  with 
Moses. 

In  Deut.  iv.  19,  xvii.  3,  star-worship  is  emphatically 
forbidden.  The  historical  books  mention,  that  after 
the  schism  it  became  prevalent  at  first  in  the  North- 
ern kingdom,  afterwards  also  in  Judah,  in  the  time 
of  Ahaz  and  Manasseh.  Hence  the  critics  inferred, 
that  this  kind  of  idolatry  was  not  of  Canaanitish 
origin,  but  was  imported  from  the  Far  East,  and  not 
known  before  the  schism.  The  protest  of  Deuter- 
onomy against  it  then  proves  its  later  origin.  We 
need  not  determine  to  what  influences  the  increasing 
popularity  of  star-worship  under  the  later  kings  was 
due,  but  have  only  to  show  that  prior  to  this  star- 
worship  existed.  This  does  not  merely  follow  from 
the  second  command  of  the  Decalogue  forbidding  to 
make  a  likeness  of  any  thing  "  in  heaven  above,"  but 
also  from  the  statement  of  Amos  v.  26.  The  proph- 
ets of  the  Assyrian  period  refer  to  it ;  e.g.,  Isa.  xvii. 
8  (where  the  Revised  Version  has  sun-images).  Also 
the  name  Beth-shemesh  (house  of  the  sun)  is  note- 
worthy in  this  respect.  Schultz  calls  attention  to 
the  fact  that  the  service  of  Baal  and  Astarte  was 
connected  with  star-worship  ;  but,  as  Deuteronomy 
treats  of  this  idolatry  separately  (iv.  3,  xii.  31,  xviii. 
20),  the  passage  (iv.  19)  must  refer  to  something  dis- 
tinct from  it.  That  Deuteronomy  considers  this  cult 
under  the  aspect  of  nature-worship,  and  not  so  much 
of  Polytheism  as  it  came  pre-eminently  to  be  after- 
wards, makes  the  acquaintance  of  the  writer  with  this 
later  state  of  affairs  improbable. 

The  phrase    p"!:n   n5;'.3   {beyond  Jordan)  has  been 


196         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

appealed  to  as  indicating  the  true  stand-point  of  the 
later  writer.  It  is  used  interchangeably  of  the  east 
and  the  west  side  of  the  river.  In  making  this  fact 
a  proof  of  later  origin,  the  critics  involve  themselves 
in  a  serious  difficulty.  All  evidence  of  Mosaic  origin 
is  summarily  dismissed  with  the  remark,  that  the 
Deuteronomist  would  take  care  to  reproduce  faith- 
fully the  Mosaic  situation.  In  all  other  instances 
he  succeeded  so  completely,  that  for  centuries  all 
critical  opinion  was  led  astray  by  his  fiction.  How, 
then,  could  he  fall  out  of  his  role  here.''  Even 
granted  that  Deuteronomy  is  non-Mosaic,  the  double 
sense  in  which  the  writer  employs  the  phrase  puts 
beyond  doubt  that  he  considered  it  as  geographically 
fixed  already  in  the  Mosaic  time.  Still,  it  is  most 
probable  that  even  in  this  case  he  would  not  have 
made  Moses  employ  it  of  the  east  side,  for  fear  that 
people  less  instructed  in  ancient  geographical  ter- 
minology might  suspect  the  Code  on  account  of  this 
expression.  Riehm,  feeling  this,  tries  to  protect  the 
Deuteronomist  against  this  charge  of  thoughtless- 
ness, by  saying  that  he  continually  distinguishes  be- 
tween his  own  work  and  the  discourses  of  Moses,  and 
that  in  the  latter  the  phrase  is  only  applied  to  the 
western  country.  Chap.  iii.  8  is  enough  to  overthrow 
this  notion,  where  Moses  himself  speaks:  "And  we 
took  .  .  .  the  land  that  was  j1"«:n  "i;3;'.3  from  the  river 
of  Arnon  unto  Mount  Hermon."  Riehm  is  under 
the  necessity  of  declaring  the  latter  words  to  be  a 
gloss  of  a  later  hand  ;  but  with  the  same  right  we 
might  declare  all  passages  where  the  term  is  applied 
to   the   eastern   country  interpolations,  which  would 


OBJECTION'S  ANSWERED.  ■        T97 

certainly  be  the  easiest  way  to  relieve  the  whole 
difficulty.  As  the  matter  stands,  the  critics  may 
choose  between  admitting  that  the  Deuteronomist 
fell  out  of  his  role  here,  which  will  add  the  more 
weight  to  other  evidence  of  Mosaic  origin,  or  that 
he  thought  Moses  could  have  spoken  thus.  We 
take  the  latter  alternative  in  view  of  the  impossi- 
bility that  a  man  who  wore  his  mask  so  well  should 
have  made  such  a  blunder  here,  and  because  we  do 
not  see  why  Moses  and  the  Israelites  in  general 
could  not  be  familiar  with  a  settled  phrase  like  this. 
The  western  side  was  at  all  times,  even  from  the 
days  of  the  patriarchs,  the  real  Canaan,  the  fixed 
point,  determining  the  usage  of  all  relative  terms. 
Much  more  could  it  be  so  for  Moses,  who  continually 
in  the  prophetic  spirit  transfers  himself  to  the  future 
time,  and  speaks  for  the  period  when  Western  Canaan 
would  be  already  conquered  and  occupied. 

We  close  with  noticing  a  few  positive  arguments 
which  make  the  later  origin  of  Deuteronomy  very 
improbable. 

I.  The  military  law  of  chap,  xx.,  which  commands 
emphatically  the  extirpation  of  the  Canaanites,  is  out 
of  place  in  the  time  after  Solomon,  since  he  made  the 
remnant  of  Canaan's  heathen  inhabitants  servants 
to  Israel  in  a  peaceful  way.  The  warning  against 
an  idolatrous  cultus  may  not  have  been  superfluous 
at  a  later  date  ;  but  the  military  law  had  become  ut- 
terly unmeaning,  and  the  latter  could  never  have  been 
used  as  a  safeguard  against  the  former.  Professor 
Robertson  Smith  admits  that  "this  feature  points 
us  directly  back  to  the  days  of  Moses." 


\ 


198  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

2.  The  curse  upon  Amalek  (chap.  xxv.  17)  leads 
to  the  same  conclusion.  According  to  i  Chron.  iv. 
43,  the  last  remnant  of  the  Amalekites  was  destroyed 
by  the  tribe  of  Simeon  positively  not  later  than  the 
reign  of  Hezekiah,  as  even  Graf  and  Kayser  admit. 
That  the  passage  is  simply  repeated  from  Exod.  xvii. 
14  will  not  help  us.  Kayser  should  have  made  clear 
what  occasion  there  was  in  Josiah's  time  to  make  the 
repetition. 

3.  The  hostile  attitude  towards  the  Ammonites 
prescribed  in  xxiii.  3-6  could  be  explained  just  as 
well  from  the  later  times.  Parallel  passages  are 
found  in  Jeremiah  and  Zephaniah.  But  the  friendly 
feelings  towards  Edom  lack  all  points  of  contact 
with  the  history  of  the  seventh  century.  The  same 
applies  to  the  mention  of  Egypt  (xxiii.  7).  Until  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  the  proj^hets  speak  of  Edom 
as  the  representative  of  the  enemies  of  God's  people. 
A  command,  "thou  shalt  not  abhor  an  Edomite," 
would  be  unparalleled  in  the  prophetic  literature  of 
Israel.  When  Kayser  tries  to  show  that  Judah  was 
occasionally  on  friendly  terms  with  Edom,  his  quota- 
tions do  not  prove  this.  Riehm  infers  from  the 
tendency  in  Hezekiah's  time  to  seek  the  alliance  of 
Egypt,  that  this  required  a  friendly  relation  to  the 
Edomites,  and  that  accordingly  the  Deuteronomist 
would  recommend  it.  But  both  Kayser  and  Riehm 
have  overlooked  that  Deuteronomy  is  written  in  a 
prophetic  spirit,  and  could  by  no  means  approve  of 
this  tendency  to  lean  upon  Egypt,  or  favor  any  thing 
resulting  from  it,  since  all  the  prophets  unanimously 
condemn   such   associations.     It   is  therefore  impos- 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  1 99 

sible  that  the  writer  should  speak  in  such  terms  of 
Egypt.  Josiah  himself,  whose  conduct  better  ex- 
presses the  theocratic  spirit  out  of  which  Deuter- 
onomy must  have  been  written,  according  to  the 
critics,  opposed  Egypt,  and  lost  his  life  in  doing 
so. 

4.  Deut.  xii.  15  contains  a  modification  of  the  law 
(Lev.  xvii.),  which  was  practicable  only  during  the 
desert-journey,  when  the  people  lived  in  the  imme- 
diate vicinity  of  the  tabernacle.  Its  impracticability 
at  any  other  time  is  self-evident.  Even  the  plural- 
ity of  sanctuaries  afterwards  would  not  have  made  it 
practicable,  since  they  were  by  no  means  so  numer- 
ous that  all  slauG^hterinc:  of  animals  could  be  done  in 
their  neisfhborhood. 

5.  Several  laws  present  features  that  become  un- 
intelligible in  the  light  of  later  conditions.  For 
instance,  xx.  5-8  makes  military  service  almost  a 
matter  of  free  choice.  How  could  this  be  in  the 
■warlike  period  of  the  later  kings }  Compare  also 
xxii.  13-21,  evidently  an  old  custom,  which  must  have 
been  antiquated  long  before  the  seventh  century ; 
also  xxvii.  21. 

6.  Though  Deuteronomy  is  eminently  prophetical 
in  one  sense,  it  is  in  so  far  distinguished  from  the 
later  prophets,  as  that  no  re-action  appears  against 
ceremonial  formalism.  This  is  an  unequivocal  sign 
that  such  a  contrast  did  not  yet  exist.  Positively  the 
ideal  character  of  the  law  is  exhibited,  but  nowhere 
is  observance  of  its  external  prescriptions  negatively 
condemned.  The  critics,  who  make  such  an  exten- 
sive use  of  this  latter  feature  in  their  interpretation 


200  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

of  the  prophets,  should  at  least  have  wondered  why 
it  is  entirely  lacking  in  Deuteronomy. 

7.  Finally,  this  fact  speaks  against  a  later  origin, 
that,  so  far  as  would  appear  from  Deuteronomy,  the 
passing  of  Jordan,  the  complete  conquest  of  Canaan, 
and  its  quiet,  undisturbed  possession,  coincide.  This 
is  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  theory  of  historical 
retrospection.  The  latter  knew  that  a  long  period 
had  been  necessary  to  subdue  the  Canaanites,  and 
that  the  task  was  not  fully  accomplished  before 
Solomon. 


LAIVS  IN  EXODUS-NUMBERS.  20I 


CHAPTER    XVI. 

INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  OF  THE  MOSAIC  ORIGIN  OF  THE  LAWS   IN 
EXODUS-NUMBERS. 

IF  our  belief  in  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Deiiter- 
onomic  Code  rests  on  valid  grounds,  we  have  an 
a  potiori  argument  for  the  authenticity  of  the  laws 
contained  in  the  middle  books.  Our  work  is  ren- 
dered more  easy  and  simple,  because  a  great  number 
of  traces  of  later  origin  discovered  by  the  critics  in 
Deuteronomy  are  not  found  here. 

I.  We  first  state  the  direct  testimony  of  the  laws 
to  their  own  origin,  which  is  of  a  twofold  character : 
{a)  when  simply  Mosaic  origin  is  claimed  ;  {b)  when 
it  is  explicitly  stated  that  Moses  committed  certain 
laws  to  writing. 

{a)  A  great  number  of  laws  are  introduced  by 
formulas  like  the  following:  "The  Lord  spake  unto 
Moses."  ''And  the  Lord  called  unto  Moses,  and 
spake  unto  him  out  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congre-  / 
gation."  "  And  he  [Moses]  said  unto  Aaron."  "  And 
the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  and  to  Aaron."  "And 
the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  in  Mount  Sinai."  These 
introductory  statements  cover  the  whole  book  of 
Leviticus,  and  in  Numbers  we  find  the  same  repeated 
throughout.  All  these  laws  claim  for  themselves 
Mosaic  origin. 


>, 


202  THE   PENrATEUCIIAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

{b)  The  passages  in  which  Moses  is  said  to  have 
committed  certain  laws  to  writing  are  the  follow- 
ing :  — 

Exod.  xvii.  14:  "And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses, 
Write  this  for  a  memorial  in  a  book,  and  rehearse  it 
in  the  ears  of  Joshua  :  for  I  will  utterly  put  out  the 
remembrance  of  Amalek  from  under  heaven."  The 
statement  falls  outside  of  the  Code,  and  is  important 
for  our  present  purpose  only  in  so  far  as  the  book 
referred  to  might  furnish  an  indirect  testimony  to  the 
fact  that  Moses  wrote  the  history  of  his  lifetime. 
The  Massorah  has  it,  "i^33  {i?i  tJie  book),  with  the 
article.  Though  the  presence  or  the  absence  of  the 
article  depends  on  the  punctuation,  still  we  may 
inquire  whether  the  Massorah  had  no  good  grounds 
in  putting  it  here,  in  spite  of  its  omission  in  the 
Greek  and  Arabic  translations  (the  only  ones  which 
could  express  it).  For,  as  the  punctuation  without 
the  article  would  have  doubtless  been  the  more  na- 
tural one,  its  addition  must  have  rested  on  positive 
reasons  in  the  nature  of  the  case.  Now,  we  cannot 
but  find  it  absurd  to  call  a  separate  note  of  this  char- 
acter *'a  book,"  or  even  to  preserve  it  as  an  isolated 
sentence  in  written  form.  The  passages  which  Bleek 
adduces,  do  not  prove  that  a  single  sentence  com- 
mitted to  writing  could  constitute  a  book.  One  of 
them  (Jer.  xxxii.  19)  does  not  speak  of  a  book,  and 
the  others  refer  to  more  comprehensive  laws  or 
decrees.  The  most  plausible  interpretation  is  that 
which  the  Massorah  intimated  by  adding  the  article  ; 
viz.,  that  Moses  was  accustomed  to  commemorate 
important  events  and  commands,  and  that  this  book, 


LAWS  IN  EXODUS- NUMBERS.  203 

the  origin  of  our  present  Pentateuch,  is  referred  to 
by  God. 

Exod.  xxiv.  4  :  *'  And  Moses  wrote  all  the  words 
of  the  Lord."  The  words  of  the  Book  of  the  Cove- 
nant are  meant,  which  included  chap.  xx.  22-xxiii.  33. 
Whether  the  Decalogue  was  included  is  not  certain, 
but  improbable  for  the  following  reasons  :  {a)  The 
book  was  read  in  the  audience  of  the  people  (ver.  7)  ; 
this  would  have  been  superfluous  in  case  of  the 
Decalogue,  which  God  himself  had  promulgated  with 
audible  voice,  {b)  It  is  not  stated  that  Moses  wrote 
the  Decalogue  :  God  himself  wrote  it  on  tables  of 
stone,  if)  The  parallel  Covenant-law  in  chap,  xxxiv., 
equally  committed  to  writing,  did  not  repeat  the 
Decalogue. 

Num.  xxxiii.  2  :  Moses  wrote  the  list  of  stations 
during  the  desert -journey  (ver.  3-49). 

These  passages  cover  a  comparatively  small  part 
of  the  Sinaitic  legislation.  Critics  have  rashly  in- 
ferred that  we  have  no  positive  testimony  of  its 
codification  by  Moses,  and  have  even  gone  to  the 
length  of  asserting  that  the  passages  just  enumer- 
ated exclude  the  writing  of  any  other  part  of  the 
law  by  Moses.  Dr.  Kuenen  says,  "  When  in  the 
first  four  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  only  a  few  pieces 
of  little  length  are  ascribed  to  Moses,  it  becomes 
probable  that  all  the  rest,  in  the  writer's  opinion,  is 
non-Mosaic."  Delitzsch  and  Bleek  and  many  others 
are  of  the  same  opinion. 

We  believe  that  this  conclusion  is  as  unwarranted 
as  the  other  extreme,  to  which  some  conservative 
critics  have  gone,  of  asserting  that  we  might  reason, 


204         TFIE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

from  the  part  being  written  by  Moses,  that  the  whole 
was.  The  truth  is,  that  these  passages  prove  noth= 
ing  in  either  direction  ;  since  the  special  command  to 
write  was  clearly  occasioned  by  extraordinary  circum- 
stances, and  served  a  special  purpose.  That  Exod. 
xvii.  14  presupposes  a  more  comprehensive  work,  we 
have  seen  already.  The  Covenant-law  had  to  be 
written  separately  for  its  symbolic  use  in  the  solemn 
transaction  (chap.  xxiv.).  After  the  Covenant  had 
been  broken,  the  second  law  (chap,  xxxiv.)  was,  of 
course,  written  separately  after  the  analogy  of  the 
first. 

There  can  be,  then,  no  doubt  that  the  Jehovistic 
and  Elohistic  legislation  claim  for  themselves  Mosaic 
origin.  We  must  accept  this  self-testimony,  so  long 
as  it  has  not  been  disproved  by  other  evidence.  Ac- 
cordingly we  might  stop  here,  and,  remembering  how 
the  unity  of  the  laws  in  Exodus-Numbers  has  been 
established,  dismiss  the  subject.  Still,  it  may  be  well 
to  survey  the  contents  of  the  intermediate  books 
wit'h  special  regard  to  — 

2.  Their  indirect  internal  evidence  of  Mosaic 
origin. 

Many  of  the  Levitical  laws  are  so  formulated,  that 
they  presuppose  the  sojourn  of  the  people  in  the 
desert-camp  around  the  tabernacle ;  and  many  com- 
mands rest  for  their  practicability  entirely  on  this 
situation.  It  is  superfluous  to  point  this  out  in  de- 
tail. Compare  Lev.  i.-vii.,  xi.-xvi.,  xiii.,  xiv.,  xvi., 
xvii.  ;  Num.  i.,  ii.,  iv.,  x.  1-8,  xix. 

In  the  case  of  other  laws,  the  form  is  determined 
by  the  historical  event  that  occasioned  them,  so  that 


LAWS  IN  EXODUS-NUMBERS.  20$ 

they  cannot  have  existed  separate  apart  from  the 
latter.  Exod.  xxxv.-xl.  is  thus  connected  with  chap. 
xxv.-xxxi.     Lev.  xvi.  attaches  itself  to  chap.  x.  i. 

Bleek  based  on  these  facts  the  following  proposi- 
tions :  — 

1.  Even  if  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present  form  be 
not  composed  by  Moses,  and  it  be  shown  that  many 
individual  laws  are  the  product  of  a  later  time,  still 
the  Pentateuchal  Code  as  a  whole  is,  as  to  its  spirit 
and  character,  genuine  and  Mosaic. 

2.  The  art  of  writing  must  have  been  already 
known  among  the  Hebrew  people  in  the  Mosaic 
period,  and  practised  to  such  an  extent  that  compre- 
hensive law-books  were  in  existence. 

3.  We  stand  in  the  Pentateuch  (as  far  as  the 
middle  books  are  concerned)  throughout  on  an  his- 
torical basis. 

At  first  blush,  it  would  seem  that  these  positions 
were  unassailable.  The  old  way  of  speaking  of 
myths,  legends,  or  at  best  of  traditions,  so  exten- 
sively applied  to  history,  proved  impracticable  here. 
All  the  characteristics  of  myths  and  legends  were 
wanting ;  and,  as  Wellhausen  strikingly  remarks, 
**  For  the  originality  of  legends,  exactly  the  opposite 
criteria  decide  from  those  by  which  actual  history  is 
tested.  Legends  are  at  the  farthest  distance  from 
their  source,  where  they  appear  in  connection  with 
an  exact  chronology."  And  so  the  case  actually 
stands.  The  phenomena  admit  of  only  two  theories 
for  their  explanation  ;  more  and  more  the  extremes 
draw  to  themselves  the  occupants  of  abandoned 
intermediate  positions  ;  we  have  to  choose  between 


206         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

Baal  and  God,  nature-worship  and  supernatural  re- 
ligion, fraud  and  history. 

The  modern  criticism  has  not  shrunk  from  taking 
the  former  of  these  alternatives.  The  Priest  Code 
cannot  be  Mosaic.  Still,  it  bears  the  impress  of 
Mosaic  origin.  To  reconcile  these  two  facts,  only 
one  way  is  left  open  :  what  is  not  genuine,  and  still 
so  striking,  must  have  been  fabricated  with  a  pur- 
pose ;  the  Mosaic  dress  of  the  priestly  laws  is  woven 
for  it  by  the  skilful  hands  of  exilic  and  post-exilic 
fraud. 

These  extreme  views  seem  to  have  no  common 
ground  left  on  which  to  meet  each  other.  What  we 
recognize  as  one  of  the  most  striking  proofs  of 
Mosaic  origin,  is  immediately  construed  on  the  other 
side  as  the  meanest  sort  of  Judaizing  fiction.  The 
material,  under  the  moulding  hands  of  criticism,  is 
like  clay  in  the  hands  of  a  potter.  There  is  no  man- 
ner of  argumentation  which  is  not  instantly,  under 
the  influence  of  these  profane  principles,  turned  round 
in  the  opposite  direction. 

To  decide  this  question  critically,  no  amount  of 
philosophy  or  religious  conviction  will  suffice.  It  is 
only  when  on  both  sides  the  following  principles  are 
admitted,  that  there  is  some  hope  of  an  historical 
solution  of  the  problem  :  — 

I.  A  legal  as  well  as  a  literary  fiction,  however  in- 
geniously devised,  will  always  more  or  less  betray  the 
time  of  its  origin.  The  veil  thrown  over  it  will  be 
so  transparent  in  some  spots,  that  the  actual  situa- 
tion can  be  recognized.  With  regard  to  Deuter- 
onomy, the    whole    critical    argument    rests    on    the 


LAIVS  IN  EXODUS-NUMBERS.  20/ 

validity  of  this  principle.  We  do,  therefore,  no  injus- 
tice to  the  critics  in  applying  it  here. 

2.  The  fiction  will  naturally  seize  upon  such  points 
in  the  fictitious  situation  which  it  portrays,  as  stand 
in  immediate  contact  with  the  present  for  which  it 
tries  to  provide.  The  ideal  is  not  for  its  own  sake, 
but  serves  a  practical  purpose  :  it  must  accordingly 
be  chosen  so  as  to  have  a  direct  bearing  upon  the 
latter. 

Even  a  superficial  observer  cannot  but  discover 
that  the  pretended  Priest  Code  does  not  comply  with 
either  of  these  conditions.  Numerous  historical 
allusions,  referring  even  to  minute  and  unimportant 
points,  as  we  saw,  are  discovered  in  Deuteronomy. 
Historical  data  are  disentangled  from  their  Mosaic 
environment,  and  successively  assigned  to  their  al- 
leged true  place  in  the  history  of  later  times.  Riehm 
proves  by  a  purely  internal  process,  that  Deuteronomy 
must  have  been  w^ritten  after  the  time  of  Solomon, 
Jehoshaphat,  Hezekiah,  Manasseh,  in  the  reign  of 
Josiah.  Will  the  critics  lay  before  us  a  similar  series 
of  propositions,  that  we  may  gradually  and  reasona- 
bly convince  ourselves  of  the  post-exilic  origin  of  the 
Priest  Code  1  No  semblance  of  internal  evidence  is 
given,  neither  do  the  critics  claim  that  any  exists. 
There  must  certainly  be  a  reason,  if  the  Code  origi- 
nated between  Ezekiel's  Thora  (B.C.  574)  and  its 
promulgation  by  Ezra  (B.C.  444),  a  time  of  such 
critical  and  momentous  changes  in  the  history  of 
Israel,  —  there  must,  we  say,  be  a  reason  why  it  lacks 
all  historical  references.  Had  the  art  of  forgery 
made  such  marvellous  progress  in   the   mean  while, 


208  THE   PENTATEUCTIAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

that,  whilst  the  Deuteronomist  still  partially  failed, 
the  writers  of  the  Priest  Code  fully  succeeded  in 
hiding  themselves  behind  the  shield  of  Moses  ? 

What  point  of  contact  do  the  exilic  and  post-exilic 
times  offer  for  Lev.  xvii.  ?  What  practical  bearing 
could  such  a  law  as  that  of  chap,  xvi.,  concerning  the 
Day  of  Atonement,  have  upon  a  period  when  the 
ark  no  longer  existed.?  How  can  we  find  a  positive 
reason  for  the  forging  of  such  commands .?  The 
cultus  of  the  past  was  in  many  cases  deficient,  and 
could  not  furnish  a  norm.  Neither  did  Ezekiel's 
Thora  bind  them.  What  other  principle  can  have 
governed  the  framers  of  these  laws,  if  not  their  adap- 
tability to  the  future  restoration.?  How,  then,  shall 
we  account  for  the  scene  of  the  whole  not  beins:  laid 
in  Canaan,  but  in  the  desert,  and,  moreover,  the  laws 
being  adapted  to  a  large  extent  only  to  the  desert- 
life  }  It  is  no  answer  to  say  that  the  fictitious 
character  made  such  dissimulation  necessary.  The 
question  is,  why  was  exactly  this  form  of  dissimula- 
tion chosen .?  That  the  Mosaic  mask  could  have  been 
imposed  on  more  attractive  and  appropriate  features, 
the  critical  opinion  of  Deuteronomy  shows.  Why  is 
not  Moses  represented  as  giving  a  law  with  special 
reference  to  the  settled  life  of  the  people  in  Canaan  ."* 
All  these  questions  the  newer  criticism  fails  to 
answer.  As  it  has  stripped  the  Mosaic  period  of  its 
miraculous  character,  so  it  has  enshrouded  the  time 
of  the  exile  and  the  subsequent  period  in  an  im- 
penetrable mist. 

We  ask  whether  there  are  no  portions  of  these 
laws  whose  authenticity  can  be  established  independ- 


LAIVS  IN  EXODUS-NUMBERS.  209 

ently  of  this  self-testimony,  so  that  we  may  make 
them  the  basis  for  farther  argumentation.  If  only 
one  case  can  be  indicated  where  the  internal  evidence 
is  verified  beyond  doubt  by  external  considerations, 
the  critical  theory  of  fiction  fails. 

Now,  there  are  such  cases.  The  Mosaic  institu- 
tions, as  they  are  represented  in  the  Codes,  are  full 
of  Egyptian  reminiscences.  It  is  true,  every  resem- 
blance does  not  justify  us  in  assuming  a  historical 
connection,  since  certain  rites  and  ceremonies  are 
common  to  all  ancient  peoples.  But  in  some  cases 
the  similarity  may  be  so  striking,  and  so  strongly 
corroborated  by  historical  testimony,  that  accident  is 
out  of  the  question.  An  illustration  of  this  we  find 
in  the  law  concerning  leprosy,  and  its  treatment  by 
the  priests  (Lev.  xiii.,  xiv.).  The  following  facts,  as 
stated  by  Delitzsch,  concur  to  establish  their  Mosaic 
origin  almost  beyond  dispute :  {a)  The  exodus  of 
Israel  has  been  identified  by  nearly  all  Egyptolo- 
gists with  the  expulsion  of  the  lepers  spoken  of  by 
Manetho,  Chaeremon,  Lysimachus,  Tacitus,  Diodo- 
rus,  and  Justinus.  {b)  The  peculiar  form  in  which 
Egyptian  tradition  has  preserved  this  memory  of 
the  exodus  can  only  be  accounted  for  by  the  assump- 
tion that  leprosy  prevailed  more  or  less  among  the 
Israelites.  Over-population,  the  result  of  their  rapid 
increase  in  Goshen,  may  have  been  the  natural  cause 
of  this  impurity.  This  is  confirmed  by  Scripture 
testimony  of  Jehovistic  character  (Exod.  iv.  6;  Num. 
xii.  10,  15).  if)  On  account  of  this  plague,  the  Egyp- 
tians would  necessarily  consider  the  Jews  as  the 
importers  of  leprosy,  and,  as  they  carried  their  sys- 


210         THE  PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

tematic  purifications  to  an  extreme  for  themselves, 
would  exert  an  influence  in  the  same  direction  upon 
the  Israelites,  {d)  This  sanitary,  and  more  specially 
prophylactic,  treatment  of  the  disease  was  among  the 
Egyptians  assigned  to  the  priests,  and  must  have 
been  pursued  in  accordance  with  certain  fixed  rules, 
as  was  the  case  with  their  medical  practice  in  general. 
(yC)  It  admits  of  no  doubt,  that  the  Israelites  would 
follow  in  their  treatment  of  the  plague  Egyptian 
usage.  (/)  Actually  we  find  in  their  laws  a  care- 
fully prescribed  method  of  dealing  with  it  ;  diagnos- 
tic criteria  are  given  ;  it  appears  also  as  the  special 
task  of  the  priests,  to  discern  the  various  phases  of 
the  disease,  and  declare  the  persons  clean  or  unclean 
after  a  careful  inspection.  All  these  traits  com- 
bined, amount  almost  to  a  logical  demonstration  of 
the  Egyptian,  and  consequently  Mosaic,  origin  of  the 
law  of  leprosy. 

That  there  was  such  a  law  prior  to  the.  Deuter- 
onomic  Code,  the  passage  xxiv.  8  shows.  When  the 
critics  resort  to  the  arbitrary  assumption,  that  some 
other  law  may  just  as  well  have  been  referred  to  by 
the  Deuteronomist,  we  have  reached  the  sphere  of 
the  unknowable,  where  it  is  not  safe  to  carry  on  the 
discussion. 

This  case  of  a  clearly  established  Mosaic  law 
within  the  limits  of  the  Priest  Code  has  significance 
in  more  than  one  respect,  i.  As  in  the  regulations, 
mention  is  made  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congrega- 
tion and  of  the  camp  (xiii.  46,  xiv.  11),  we  infer 
that  such  local  specifications,  when  occurring  else- 
where,  are   justly   considered   as   internal   marks   of 


LAWS  IN  EXODUS-NUMBERS.  2 1 1 

Mosaic  origin,  and  that,  in  the  main,  the  local  col- 
oring of  these  laws  is  not  fictitious,  but  reliable. 
2.  The  fact  that  the  tabernacle  appears  here  as  a 
place  of  sacrifice  in  ver.  ii,  and  not  merely  as  a  tent 
for  consulting  God,  which,  according  to  the  critics, 
is  its  Jehovistic  conception,  proves  that  in  the  laws 
of  the  tabernacle  and  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood  we 
stand  on  historic  ground.  3.  The  mention  of  the 
sin-  and  trespass-offering  in  chap.  xiv.  is  a  proof  that 
these  two  species  of  sacrifice  were  pre-exilic,  and 
indeed  Mosaic,  in  their  origin,  and  not,  as  the  critics 
assert,  post-Ezekielian. 

If  any  thing  in  this  collection  of  laws  is  Mosaic, 
it  will  be  the  Decalcgue.  Belonging  to  what  the 
critics  themselves  consider  the  oldest  Code,  and, 
according  to  the  oldest  history,  being  written  on 
tables  of  stone  by  the  finger  of  God,  its  simple 
form,  early  appearance,  and  indubitable  presence  in 
the  ark  in  later  time,  all  combine  to  render  the 
highest  antiquity  plausible.  To  this  may  be  added 
the  remarkable  fact,  that  the  Decalogue  of  Exodus, 
though  slightly  differing  in  form  from  the  Deuterono- 
mic  one,  is  nevertheless  essentially  Deuteronomic 
in  language  and  expression.  At  the  same  time,  it 
shows  the  usual  characteristics  of  the  Jehovist.  What 
the  critics  adduce  against  its  Mosaic  origin,  cannot 
outweigh  these  strong  presumptions  in  favor  of  it. 
The  alterations  in  the  Deuteronomic  text  can  only 
awake  surprise  when  we  assign  as  late  a  date  to  the 
composition  of  the  book  as  the  critics  do.  Moses' 
reproduction  might  be  a  free  one,  as  his  whole  Deu- 
terosis    of  the  law  evidently   is.     That  the  Deuter- 


212  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

onomic  Decalogue  puts  the  Sabbath-law  on  another 
basis  is  inaccurate.  The  truth  is,  that  the  real  foun- 
dation of  the  command  is  not  restated,  but  a  practical 
incentive  substituted,  —  the  reminder  that  the  people 
had  been  servants  in  Egypt ;  and  this  reference  to 
Egypt  pervades  the  whole  Code.  Another  objection 
of  Reuss,  Wellhausen,  etc.,  is,  that  the  prohibition 
to  worship  God  under  an  image  cannot  reach  up  to 
the  time  of  Moses,  and  that  the  cultus  instituted  by 
Jeroboam  after  the  schism  proves  its  non-existence  at 
that  date.  But  the  assertion  that  Jeroboam's  cultus 
was  not  essentially  new  or  exotic,  but  was  customary 
long  before  in  Canaan  (R.  Smith),  cannot  be  proved. 
Neither  did  the  earlier  prophets  tolerate  the  calf- 
worship,  except  as  a  lesser  evil  an  contrast  with  the 
service  of  Baal  and  Astarte.  The  calf  made  in  the 
wilderness  by  Aaron  reminds  us  of  Egypt :  likewise 
Jeroboam's  cultus  jorobably  proceeded  from  Egypt, 
where  he  had  enjoyed  the  hospitality  of  the  king. 
This  transgression  of  a  well-known  command  is  not 
without  parallel  in  history :  certainly  the  Romish 
Church,  in  adoring  Mary,  the  angels,  and  saints, 
shows  no  ignorance  of  the  Decalogue.  Just  as  well 
may  Jeroboam  have  quieted  his  not  too  tender  con- 
science by  some  forced  interpretation  of  the  law. 
The  newer  critics,  who  are  inclined  to  leave  to  Moses 
as  little  as  possible,  generally  make  an  exception 
in  this  case.  Smend  admits  the  Mosaic  origin  of 
the  Decalogue  unconditionally.  Others  with  some 
restrictions.  Graf  conceded  Mosaic  origin  in  some 
original  form,  different  from  the  one  we  possess  now, 


LAWS  IN  EXODUS-NUMBERS.  213 

and  holds  that  the  ten  words  were  at  first  transmitted 
orally.  Noldeke  is  unwilling  to  grant  even  as  little 
or  as  much  as  that ;  and  Reuss,  with  Wellhausen, 
goes  to  the  length  of  denying  that  Moses  had  any 
thing  whatever  to  do  with  the  Decalog-ue. 


214         THE   PENTATEL/CHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 


CHAPTER    XVII. 

TESTIMONY   OF  THE  HISTORICAL   BOOKS, -JUDGES,  FIRST  AND 
SECOND   SAMUEL,  FIRST  AND   SECOND   KINGS. 

THE  radical  difference  between  our  conception  of 
the  Old  Testament  and  that  of  the  critics  is  such 
that  it  makes  historical  argumentation  extremely  dif- 
ficult. Of  course,  all  depends  on  our  estimate  of  the 
sources  ;  and  here  the  disagreement  begins  already. 
Joshua  is  so  dependent  on  the  Pentateuch,  that  its 
testimony  is  a  piiori  declared  invalid.  Judges  has 
undergone  various  redactions,  in  which  the  historical 
truth  was  moulded  for  religious  instruction  (Reuss, 
Gesch.,  p.  337).  First,  it  consisted  of  a  number  of 
independent  legends,  lacking  all  unity  except  that 
of  a  common  national  spirit.  They  were  collected  into 
a  body,  and  the  religious  tendency  of  the  redactor 
furnished  the  thread  of  their  connection.  History 
was  made  revelation,  says  Reuss.  ''Judges  is  a  pro- 
phetical sermon."  To  the  author's  generation,  the 
old,  heroic  times  had  become  quite  unintelligible  ;  so 
that  it  devolves  upon  an  omniscient  criticism  to  cor- 
rect in  a  pedantic  schoolmasterly  way  the  wrong 
conceptions  entertained  by  the  Israelites  concerning 
their  own  history.  The  case  stands  no  better  with 
the    books   of  Samuel    and    Kings   (compare   Reuss, 


TESTIMONY  OF   THE   HISTORICAL   BOOKS.      21 5 

§§  245,  seqq.,  340,  scqq).  And  how  the  newer  criti- 
cism has  dealt  with  Chronicles,  is  too  well  known  to 
need  special  mention  here. 

From  all  this,  it  appears  that  to  assail  the  critics  on 
historical  grounds  is  lost  labor.  They  have  their  con- 
ception of  the  Old  Testament,  and  we  have  ours. 
When,  in  Judges,  certain  deviations  from  the  Mosaic 
law  appear,  often  with  the  express  disapproval  of  the 
author,  all  statements  of  the  latter  character  are 
attributed  to  the  redactor,  who  sees  the  facts  in  his 
own  subjective  light,  so  that  the  disapproval  is  not 
God's,  but  his.  According  to  our  view,  the  historical 
books  were  written  with  the  very  purpose  of  making 
past  history  a  mirror  and  warning  for  the  future 
Israel.  According  to  the  critics,  all  tendency  to- 
wards instruction  is  of  later  date.  In  other  words, 
we  claim  that  the  self-conscious,  revealing  God  was 
in  history  from  the  beginning,  and  caused  history  to 
be  written  as  such  :  the  critics  refuse  to  recognize 
any  history  as  genuine  except  as  it  presents  itself 
under  the  fascinating  disguise  of  a  legend  or  myth. 
All  deeper  conception  of  history  is  excluded.  This 
amounts,  of  course,  to  a  denial  of  the  supernatural 
element  in  its  course.  But  the  fact  remains,  that  it 
is  a  hopeless  task  to  convince  our  opponents  by 
adducing  phenomena,  because  they  will  construe 
them  according  to  their  own  theory,  as  we  do  accord- 
ing to  ours.  The  illusion  that  theories  are  founded 
on  facts,  has  to  be  given  up  :  neither  should  it  be  so, 
for  without  more  or  less  of  preconceived  hypothesis, 
the  facts  alone  remain  dark  and  indifferent. 

P'or  this  reason,  we  think  it  useless  to  prove  posi- 


2l6          THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

tively  from  the  historical  books,  that,  in  the  time  of 
which  they  treat,  the  Pentateuchal  Codes,  or,  even  as 
Hengstenberg  and  others  have  attempted  to  demon- 
strate, the  Pentateuch  itself,  existed.  The  direct 
testimonies  collected  from  such  passages  as  2  Sam. 
xxii.  23  ;  I  Kings  ii.  3,  vi.  12,  viii.  53,  are  not  of  such 
a  character,  or  so  numerous,  but  the  critics  can  help 
themselves  with  the  assumption  of  a  few  interpola- 
tions. References  to  civil  or  ceremonial  usages  of 
similar  character  to  those  described  in  the  Codes  do 
not  prove  that  the  latter  existed  ;  for  all  the  critics 
admit,  e.g.,  that  the  ritual  was  pre-exilic  in  substance, 
though  not  codified  before  the  exile.  Only  manifest 
verbal  quotations  would  help ;  but  these,  again,  are 
not  numerous  enough  to  warrant  general  and  decisive 
conclusions  :  and  very  seldom  is  the  relation  of  two 
passages  such  that  it  permits  only  one  view  concern- 
ing their  interdependence.  We  do  not  mean  to  say 
that  the  traces  of  the  existence  of  a  ritual,  as  they 
appear  in  the  historical  books,  have  no  right  to  speak 
in  this  matter,  but  simply  that  they  are  no  decisive 
proofs  of  the  existence  of  the  Pentateuchal  Codes. 
Their  value  consists  in  the  evidence  they  afford,  that 
the  ritualistic  spirit  was  by  no  means  exclusively  the 
fruit  and  exponent  of  post-exilic  Judaism,  but  one  of 
the  features  of  Jewish  national  life  from  the  begin- 
ning. Israel  was  the  people  of  the  law  long  before 
the  pretended  origin  of  the  Priest  Code.  And,  in 
so  far  as  the  historical  books  bear  testimony  to  this 
fact,  they  furnish  abundant  material  for  the  con- 
struction of  a  solid  argument  against  the  newest 
phase  of  criticism.     It  should  also  be  remembered, 


TESTIMONY  OF   THE   HISTORICAL   BOOKS.      21/ 

that  the  difference  between  ritualistic  usage  and  rit- 
ual law  is  not  so  great  as  it  is  often  represented  by 
the  critics.  Every  one  who  admits  that  a  ritual 
existed  corresponding  to  the  tccJuiiqiic  of  the  Priest 
Code,  has  thereby  taken  our  side  with  regard  to 
the  main  question  ;  and  we  will  not  dispute  with  him 
on  the  subordinate  point,  whether  this  usage  was 
written  or  unwritten  law.  Usage,  when  once  fixed, 
necessarily  becomes  law. 

In  the  main,  our  attitude  on  this  point  must  be 
apologetic.  In  making  this  concession,  we  can  justly 
claim  that  the  critics  shall  not  construe  the  silence 
of  history  concerning  any  law  as  a  proof  of  its  non- 
existence. We  do  not  infer  from  the  mention  of 
some  usage,  that  it  was  regulated  by  law.  Neither 
should  our  opponents  infer  from  the  absence  of  such 
mention,  that  no  law  could  have  existed.  For  the 
rest,  we  simply  try  to  show  that  the  facts,  which  are 
admitted  as  historical  on  both  sides,  do  not  exclude 
the  existence  of  the  Pentateuchal  Codes. 

We  begin  with  the  period  of  Judges.  That  the 
people  sacrificed  at  Bochim  (ii.  5),  Gideon  at  Ophrah 
(vi.  21),  Manoah  at  Zorah  (xiii.  19),  can  by  no  means 
have  involved  a  transgression  of  the  law  ;  for  in  all 
these  instances,  there  was  an  appearance  of  the 
"'  "^^^  {angel  of  Jehovah)  ;  and  the  provisionary 
regulation  given  at  Sinai,  before  the  promulgation 
of  the  Levitical  law,  went  into  effect  once  more. 
That  this  is  the  true  explanation,  is  specially  seen 
from  one  fact  generally  overlooked ;  viz.,  that  no 
theopJiany  took  place  without  a  sacrifice,  which  shows 
how  closely  the  ideas  of  a  revelation  made  by  God, 


2l8  THE   FENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

and  of  a  sacrifice  made  by  man,  were  connected  in 
the  Israelitish  mind  :  so  that  we  are  not  only  war- 
ranted in  thus  harmonizing  law  and  history,  but  posi- 
tively claim  that  the  right  to  sacrifice  at  an  arbitrary 
place,  as  the  critics  postulate  it,  was  utterly  incon- 
sistent with  the  most  primitive  elements  of  the 
Hebrew  religious  consciousness. 

For  Gideon's  sacrifice  (vi.  26),  the  peculiar  circum- 
stances and  the  symbolical  significance  are  enough 
to  make  it  an  exceptional  case.  In  the  place  where 
the  idol  had  been  served,  Jehovah  reclaimed  what 
was  his  own.  This  nocturnal,  private  olaJi,  on  a  spot 
whose  vicinity  had  been  shortly  before  sanctified  by 
a  theophany  (ver.  11,  seqq.),  decides,  of  course,  noth- 
ing as  to  the  common  j^ractice. 

In  other  passages,  no  mention  of  sacrifices  is  made. 
Gideon's  altar  was  strictly  memorial,  as  appears  from 
the  fact  that  (a)  he  gives  it  a  name  :  altars  erected 
for  practical  use  had  no  names,  (b)  Until  this  day  it 
is  yet  in  Ophrah  ;  i.e.,  as  a  memorial  or  ancient  relic. 
(c)  Gideon  is  commanded  in  ver.  26  to  build  a  second 
altar,  this  time  for  a  practical  purpose.  That  in  chap. 
xi.  II,  Jephthah  is  said  to  have  uttered  all  his  words 
before  the  Lord  at  Mizpeh,  can  be  used  on  the  criti- 
cal side  only  by  a  double  allegation  :  (^7)  that  the 
swearing  of  an  oath  was  necessarily  connected  with 
sacrifices,  of  which  the  preceding  verse  is  already 
a  flat  contradiction  ;  {b)  that  "'  'JsS  must  refer  to  a 
sanctuary.  It  simply  means,  ''as  in  the  presence  of 
Jehovah,"  a  circumlocution  for  "taking  Jehovah  as 
witness,"  "testifying  with  invocation  of  his  name;" 
i.e.,  "  solemn  swearing."     Chap.  xx.  i  must  and  can  be 


TESTIMONY  OF   THE   HISTORICAL   BOOKS.      2 19 

explained  on  the  same  principle.  Neither  does  the 
narrative  of  chaps,  xx.,  xxi.,  afford  any  serious  dif- 
ficulty ;  for  in  xx.  27  it  is  explicitly  stated  that  the 
ark  was  in  the  vicinity  with  Phinehas  the  priest, 
howsoever  we  may  understand  ^J^  n'3  (Bethel,  or 
house  of  God)  in  ver.   26  and  in  chap.  xxi.   2. 

In  other  cases,  where  there  is  an  actual  transgres- 
sion of  the  law,  as  that  of  Micah  and  the  Danites,  the 
censure  of  the  writer  is  not  only  expressed  in  the 
whole  tenor  of  the  narrative,  but  also  explicitly  stated. 

The  objection  that  others  than  pr^'csts  officiated  in 
sacrificial  transactions,  has  still  less  force.  Gideon 
and  Manoah  offered,  because  Jehovah,  in  approaching 
them  visibly,  sanctioned  an  immediate  exercise  of 
that  priestly  right,  which,  belonging  to  all  Israel,  was 
only  representatively  vested  in  the  Levitical  priests. 
Wherever  the  Lord  appears,  there  is  his  altar.  To 
whomsoever  he  draws  near,  he  gives  the  right  to 
come  near,  which  is  the  essence  of  the  priesthood. 

It  is  alleged  that  we  do  not  get  the  impression 
from  the  first  chapters  of  Samuel,  that  the  elaborate 
Levitical  law  was  in  operation.  This  is  certainly 
true  ;  but  very  little  dependence  can  be  placed  on 
such  an  impression,  which  it  certainly  could  not  be 
the  intention  of  the  writer  to  convey.  Who  will  be' 
rash  enough  to  infer,  because  Eli's  sons  are  the  only 
priests  mentioned,  that  there  were  no  others  1  From 
I  Sam.  xxi.  we  get  the  impression  that  there  was 
only  a  single  priest,  Ahimelech,  at  Nob.  But  chap, 
xxii.  takes  away  the  impression  by  stating  that  not  less 
than  fourscore  and  five  priests  were  slain  by  Doeg. 

It  was  an  old  objection,  already  made  by  Gramberg, 


220          THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

and  now  revived  by  Wellhausen  and  the  newer 
school,  that,  in  the  oldest  sacrificial /7'^,rz>,  the  meat 
was  boiled,  i  Sam.  ii.  15-17  is  quoted  as  an  exam- 
ple. But  the  most  superficial  inspection  of  the  pas- 
sage shows  that  there  is  no  allusion  to  the  offering 
of  cooked  flesh  at  all.  Ver.  15  says,  "Before  they 
burnt  the  fat : "  we  have  to  do  here  with  shelamiui. 
The  sin  of  the  priests  consisted  in  desiring  their 
part  before  Jehovah.  For  the  rest,  the  whole  passage 
implies  that  the  customs  then  in  vogue  at  the  sanc- 
tuary cannot  be  taken  as  exponents  of  the  existing 
laws. 

The  circumstances  of  Samuel's  time  —  first  the 
captivity  of  the  ark,  afterwards  its  separation  from 
the  sanctuary,  the  general  apostasy  of  the  people  — 
account  for  all  the  facts  that  confront  us  here.  It 
has  been  asked,  If  unity  of  worship  was  the  divine 
command,  why  was  not  the  ark,  after  its  return,  re- 
stored to  the  sanctuary,  and  the  centralization  of 
sacrifices  enforced  }  The  answer  is  obvious.  Then, 
as  at  all  times,  mighty  reforms  require  a  period  of 
long  inward  preparation.  To  effect  the  latter  was 
Samuel's  mission,  and  to  keep  this  in  mind  affords 
the  only  key  to  a  right  understanding  of  his  whole 
life.  This  meets  the  critical  objection,  that,  if  Israel 
were  deprived  of  a  national  sanctuary,  all  worship, 
at  least  sacrificial  worship,  ought  to  have  ceased. 
Between  Eli  and  David's  time,  this  slow  process  of 
inward  preparation  went  on  ;  the  spirit  of  reform  was 
striving  with  the  spirit  of  apostasy  ;  all  intermediate 
phenomena  testify  to  an  abn6rmal  state.  So  at  least 
the   Old  Testament  itself    considers  it   (Jer.  vii.    12, 


TESTIMONY  OF   THE   IHSTORICAL   BOOKS.      221 

14,  xxvi.  6;  Ps.  Ixxviii.  60,  6%).  The  transition  was 
from  Shiloh  to  Zion.  What  happened  at  both  was 
legal,  and  does  bear  witness  to  the  law  :  what  falls 
between  them  was  in  part  abnormal,  in  part  illicit, 
and  should  not  be  made  to  testify  against  the  law. 
Still,  even  here  matters  do  not  stand  out  in  so  bad  a 
light  as  critics  represent  them.  When  Saul  under- 
takes to  sacrifice,  without  waiting  for  Samuel's  pres- 
ence, he  is  severely  rebuked  ;  and  this  act  becomes 
the  turning-point  in  his  life.  This  certainly  does  not 
look  like  a  state  of  affairs  in  which  everybody  could 
sacrifice.  When  the  author  of  the  books  of  Samuel 
mentions  with  manifest  approval,  that  Saul  built  an 
altar,  this  must  be  understood  in  the  entire  light  of 
Saul's  character  :  it  expressed  a  sort  of  piety,  though 
in  a  deficient  form.  What  David  did  on  the  thresli- 
ing-floor  of  Araunah  was  justified  by  the  appearance 
of  the  angel,  and  the  authority  of  a  prophet  of  God, 
and  was  in  anticipation  of  the  erection  of  the  sanctu- 
ary on  that  very  spot.  The  repeated  sacrifices  on 
the  high-place  of  Gibeon  are  accounted  for  by  the 
presence  of  the  tabernacle  and  olah  altar  (i  Chron. 
xvi.  39,  40).  That  David  was  accustomed  to  worship 
God  on  the  top  of  the  mount  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Jerusalem,  does  not  imply  that  he  sacrificed  there. 
His  ephod  was  not  the  high-priestly  garment,  but 
simply  an  ephod  bad ;  that  is,  a  linen  ephod.  The 
modification  made  by  David  in  the  age  fixed  for  the 
Levites'  entering  upon  the  service  at  the  sanctuary, 
is  best  explained  by  the  change  in  the  abode  of  the 
ark,  which  had  now  become  a  permanent  one,  so  that 
the  work  of  the  Levites  became  easier,  and  the  time 


222  THE    PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

of  their  service  could  be  proportionally  prolonged. 
Those  who  defend  the  post-exilic  origin  of  the  Priest 
Code  may  try  their  skill  in  harmonizing  the  passages 
2  Chron.  xxxi.  17,  and  Ezra  iii.  8,  which  prove  that 
not  only  in  Hezekiah's  time,  but  also  in  that  of 
Zerubbabel,  the  limit  was  twenty  years.  Notwith- 
standing the  prominent  part  taken  by  Solomon  in  the 
consecration  of  the  temple,  nothing  is  ascribed  to 
him  which  would  have  been  an  intrusion  upon  the 
rights  of  the  priesthood.  For  the  true  character  of 
this  whole  period  from  a  religious  point  of  view, 
compare   i   Kings  iii.   2. 

For  the  period  succeeding  the  schism,  the  exist- 
ence of  a  divinely  authenticated  law  becomes  a 
postulate  without  which  the  history  is  wholly  unin- 
telligible. This  only  could  prevent  the  Northern 
kingdom  from  becoming  fully  apostate,  and  relapsing 
into  complete  heathenism.  There  was  a  restraining 
power,  even  in  the  worst  days  of  the  dynasty  of 
Omri :  there  was  what  Elijah  called  a  ''halting  be- 
tween two  opinions."  It  is,  indeed,  possible  to  find 
in  all  this  nothing  but  the  influence  of  long  existing 
usage,  owing  its  origin  to  the  centralization  in  the 
days  of  David  and  Solomon.  But,  on  the  one  hand, 
the  period  in  which  this  iisus  should  have  gained 
ascendency  is  far  too  short  to  account  for  the  un- 
wavering attachment  which  the  pious  in  Israel  re- 
tained to  the  sanctuary  at  Jerusalem  :  on  the  other 
hand,  the  re-action  in  the  Northern  kingdom  opposed 
the  modified  cultus  so  long  and  so  firmly,  that  it 
must  have  had  a  deeper  source  than  the  custom  of  a 
few  decades  ;  the  only  satisfactory  explanation  is,  that 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  HISTORICAL   BOOKS.      223 

it  rooted  in  the  divine  Thora,  and  preserved  a  clear 
consciousness  of  this  origin  to  tlie  very  last. 

The  objection  was  raised  already  by  Eichhorn  and 
Vatke,  and  afterwards  has  often  been  repeated,  that 
the  prophets  of  the  Northern  kingdom  (Elijah  and 
Elisha)  did  not  oppose  the  idolatry  of  the  golden 
calves,  but  simply  Baal-worship.  But  obviously  their 
opposition  was  determined  by  the  sins  that  were 
most  objectionable  at  the  time;  and,  when  Baal-wor- 
sliip  had  found  such  general  acceptance,  the  idolatry 
of  the  golden  calves  became  a  comparatively  unim- 
portant affair.  How  the  prophets  who  were  not  in- 
fluenced by  this  excess  of  wickedness,  judged  of  the 
plurality  of  altars  and  the  worship  of  the  calves,  is 
seen  in  Amos,  Hosea,  and  the  Micaiah  of  i  Kings 
xxii.  The  passage,  i  Kings  xix.  14,  must,  of  course, 
be  explained  on  the  same  principle.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  think  of  the  altars  referred  to  as  connected 
with  those  at  Dan  and  Bethel.  And,  though  their 
existence  was  not  in  strict  accordance  with  the  letter 
of  the  law,  it  had  become  a  temporary  necessity. 
The  attitude  of  the  prophets  in  Israel  towards  the 
existing  national  cultus  is  manifest  in  the  fact  of 
their  forming  schools  at  the  famous  seats  of  idolatry, 
Bethel,  (Jericho,)  Gilgal,  in  standing  protest  against  it. 

Before  we  turn  to  the  prophetical  books  them- 
selves, one  point  calls  for  a  fuller  discussion.  '  The 
origin  and  character  of  the  Bamoth-worship  (that  on 
high-places)  in  the  kingdom  of  Judah  are  of  para- 
mount importance  for  the  question  of  the  existence 
or  non-existence  of  the  Codes.  It  has  a  bearing  on 
the  whole  debate  concerning  the  primitive  religious 


224         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

state  of  Israel.  The  critics  claim,  that,  before  the 
temple  at  Jerusalem  existed,  all  places  of  worship 
were  equally  honored  and  sacred.  In  the  time  of 
Solomon,  not  so  much  a  centralization  as  an  eleva- 
tion took  place  of  the  newly  built  temple  to  be  the 
sanctuary  par  excellence.  But  the  Bamoth  (high- 
places)  existed  all  along,  and  their  right  of  existence 
was  not  disputed.  The  war  afterwards  waged  against 
them  was  the  result  of  a  higher  stage  of  religious  life 
among  the  prophets,  —  that  great  movement  which 
resulted  in  the  production  and  enforcement  of  the 
Deuteronomic  Code.  The  prophets  Amos,  Hosea, 
Isaiah,  do  not  yet  condemn  the  Bamoth  per  se,  but 
simply  their  corrupting  influence  tending  towards 
idolatry.  It  was  not  an  abnormal  cultus,  but  a  primi- 
tive state  of  affairs  :  in  one  continuous  line  it  can 
be  traced  back,  from  the  eighth  century  upwards, 
through  the  reigns  of  Solomon,  David,  Saul,  into 
the  period  of  the  Judges. 

We  must  begin  with  denying  the  last  proposition, 
which  is  indeed  the  basis  of  the  whole  arirument. 
The  statement  needs  considerable  qualification  be- 
fore it  will  satisfy  the  facts.  These  are,  that,  when 
there  was  no  legal  central  sanctuary,  the  Bamoth- 
worship  was  temporarily  tolerated,  in  order  that  the 
spontaneous  impulse  of  the  pious  might  find  opportu- 
nity to  express  itself.  This  was  the  state  of  affairs 
from  Samuel  onward,  until  the  building  of  Solomon's 
temple.  It  was,  however,  condemned,  and  considered 
illegal,  as  long  and  as  often  as  the  presence  of  God 
in  his  dwelling-place  constituted  this  the  only  place 
of  worship,  as  during  the  period  of  Judges  at  Shiloh, 


and  after  Solomon's  time  at  Jerusalem.  The  chain 
which  the  critics  have  fabricated  lacks  two  necessary 
links  :  i.  Judges  contains  no  evidence  that  the  wor- 
ship on  high-i^laces  was  allowed  or  practised  by  the 
pious.  2.  The  same  evidence  is  wanting  for  the  time 
subsequent  to  the  building  of  the  temple  in  Solomon's 
reign,  till  the  first  only  partially  successful  attempt  of 
Hezekiah  to  do  away  with  the  Bamoth. 

The  second  ground  on  which  this  theory  rests,  is 
that  the  earlier  prophets  do  not  condemn  the  wor- 
ship as  s'mhil  /ycr  sc,  but  only  on  account  of  its  cor- 
rupting tendency.  If  there  are  passages  in  Amos 
and  Hosea  which  would  bear  out  this  meaning, 
the  natural  inference  is,  that  they  accommodated 
their  teaching  to  the  difficult  situation  in  which  the 
northern  people  had  been  placed  by  the  tyranny  of 
their  rulers.  On  the  whole,  it  is  very  artificial  to 
ascribe  such  a  distinction  between  *'/rr  se"  and 
"per  accidcns  "  to  the  prophets.  Even  the  law  did 
not  prohibit  plurality  of  sanctuaries  because  of  any 
inherent  necessity  in  the  character  of  Jahveism,  but 
for  the  practical  purpose  of  securing  by  unity  purity, 
by  centralization  elevation  of  the  cultus.  When  the 
prophets,  in  accordance  with  their  general  method, 
do  not  state  the  law  in  abstracto,  but  in  its  inner 
meaning ;  when  they  emphasize  more  the  final  cause 
of  the  command  than  the  command  itself,  —  this  ex- 
hibits only  the  more  strikingly  their  true  relation  to 
the  law  as  its  spiritual  interpreters.  They  immedi- 
ately go  to  the  root  of  the  matter,  and  state  not 
only  the  "what,"  but  the  "  why  "  also.  This  is  all 
that  the  critical  distinction  amounts  to. 


/ 


2Z6         THE   PENTATEUCIIAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

The  critics  themselves  must  admit  that  the  writer 
of  Kings  represents  all  Bamoth-worship  since  the 
building  of  the  temple  as  unlawful,  and  imputes  it 
even  to  the  pious  kings  of  Judah  as  sin,  that  they  did 
not  terminate  it.  That  the  latter  did  not  take  their 
stand  as  strongly  against  this  cultus  as  afterwards 
Hezekiah  and  Josiah,  finds  its  full  explanation  in  what 
has  been  remarked.  Bamoth-worship,  tolerated  from 
Samuel  till  Solomon,  had  become  a  second  nature 
to  the  people.  The  consciousness  of  its  abnormal 
character  had  been  lost.  It  may  have  been  revived 
in  the  pious  kings  more  or  less  :  the  people  as  a 
whole  were  not  awake  to  it.  The  objection,  that  if 
such  ignorance  prevailed,  the  prophets  could  not 
have  reckoned  neglect  of  the  law  as  sin,  finds  its 
answer  in  Hos.  iv.  6.  "  My  people  are  destroyed 
for  lack  of  knowledge  :  because  thou  hast  rejected 
knowledge,  I  will  also  reject  thee,  that  thou  shalt  be 
no  priest  to  me  :  seeing  thou  hast  forgotten  the  law 
of  thy  God."  It  is  as  if  the  passage  were  written 
in  direct  refutation  of  the  critics.  To  produce  a  re- 
form among  the  people,  a  renewed  enforcement  by 
a  special  divine  providence  of  the  prophetical  Deu- 
teronomic  Code  was  required,  to  which  point  we  shall 
hereafter  direct  our  attention. 


TESTIMONY  OF   THE   EARLY  PROPHETS.      22/ 


CHAPTER    XVIII. 

TESTIMONY   OF   THE   EARLY   PROPHETS. 

IT  will  not  be  necessary  for  our  purpose,  to  in- 
vestigate all  the  amount  of  evidence  that  might 
be  collected  from  the  prophetical  writings  of  the 
Old  Testament.  We  are  chiefly  concerned  with  the 
books  of  Amos,  Hosea,  Isaiah,  and  Micah.  Of  Joel 
we  cannot  make  any  use,  since  a  number  of  critics 
remand  his  prophecy  to  the  post-exilic  period.  Jere- 
miah and  Ezekiel  wrote  after  the  pretended  origin  of 
the  Deuteronomic  Code.  Deutero-Isaiah  is  declared 
to  be  exilic. 

The  testimony  of  the  earlier  prophets  has  a  double 
weight,  since  they  speak  as  contemporary  witnesses. 
When  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Kings  makes  men- 
tion of  the  Mosaic  laws,  the  critics  are  ready  to  call 
it  one  of  his  anachronisms.  This  is  precluded  here. 
We  have  no  reason  to  fear  that  we  shall  find  our- 
selves hunting  our  own  shadow. 

We  have  first  the  passages  in  which  a  direct  refer- 
ence   to    the    'P^Sp:'.^  T\-\'\T\    {laiv   of  JcJiovah)    is    found. 
They  are  in  succession  the  following  :   Amos 
Hos.  iv.  6.,  viii.  i,  12  ;  Isa.  i.  10,  ii.   3,  v.  24,  viii. 
20,  xxiv.  5,  XXX.  9  ;  Mic.  iv.  2. 

The  value  of  this  testimony  seems  to  be  somewhat 


ii.  4;    / 
h.    16,    / 


228          THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

lessened  by  the  consideration  that  the  phrase  "'  ri").in, 
or  n~)in,  absolutely  may  designate  something  else 
than  the  Mosaic  law.  On  the  one  hand,  the  ety- 
mology (from  nv  jacerc,  cjicere,  vuuium  cxtcndere,  and 
then  instrnerc,  docerc),  on  the  other  hand,  the  exegesis 
of  some  passages,  as  Isa.  viii.  i6,  xxx.  9;  Mic.  iv.  2, 
which  require  the  more  general  sense,  go  to  prove 
that  the  phrase  may  denote  all  iiistiitction  of  God, 
whether  given  in  his  law,  or  by  the  prophets.  Com- 
pare the  instances  where  n")ln  is  parallel  with  ^y^^ 
{zvord).  The  Mosaic  law  doubtless  was  Thora  from 
the  beginning  ;  but  that  it  was  Thora  in  the  later 
specific,  traditional  sense  cannot  be  proved.  All 
that  can  be  said,  is  that  it  was  probably  the  Thora  of 
\    J  e  h  o vah  /(!7  r  cxcellen  ce. 

We  may  concede  all  this  without  depriving  our- 
selves of  the  ability  to  show  that  the  prophets  refer 
and  appeal  to  Mosaic  laws.  For  after  the  subtraction 
of  all  the  passages  where  the  general  meaning  is 
admissible,  we  keep  a  residumn  where  no  other 
sense  than  that  of  ''written  laiv''  will  satisfy  the 
context. 

There  are  cases  where  Thora  designates  God's  in- 
structions in  days  gone  by.     To  this  class  belong,  — 

Isa.  xxiv.  5:  "They  have  transgressed  the  laws, 
changed  the  ordinance,  broken  the  everlasting  Cove- 
nant." Thora  is  here  parallel  with  the  "everlasting 
Covenant,"  and  with  "ordinance,"  the  former  of 
which  would  certainly  not  apply  to  "  prophetical 
teachins:." 

Amos  ii.  4  :  "  Because  they  have  despised  the  law 
of  the  Lord,  and  have  not  kept  his  commandments, 


TESTIMONY  OF   THE   EARLY  PROPHETS.      229 

and  their  lies  caused  them  to  err,  after  the  which 
their  fathers  have  walked." 

Hos.  iv.  6.  Here  a  priestly  law  had  not  only 
been  disobeyed,  but  forgotten,  which  implies  its  ex- 
istence for  considerable  time.  Its  knowledge  and 
interpretation  are  represented  as  a  priestly  inherit- 
ance. 

Hos.  viii.  I  :  "  Because  they  have  transgressed  my 
Covenant,  and  trespassed  against  my  law."  Here 
"law"  and  ''Covenant"  are  synonymous,  as  in  Isa. 
xxiv.  5. 

But  the  critics  will  say,  How  can  we  know,  when 
Amos,  Hosea,  and  Isaiah  refer  to  a  Thora,  different 
from  their  own  words,  that  this  must  be  the  Thora 
of  Moses  }  Why  can  it  not  refer  to  the  teaching  of 
the  older  prophets,  who  had  preceded  those  of  the 
ninth  and  eighth  century.?  We  might  just  as  well 
retort  the  answer,  Why  can  it  not  refer  to  Moses, 
for  he  certainly  was  a  prophet }  Still,  this  is  not 
enough.  Our  claim  is,  that  Moses  occupies  a  unique 
position.  He  is  the  -^xo-^YvoX  par  excellence,  the  legis- 
lator to  whose  work  the  later  prophets  appealed,  in 
whose  institutions  they  lived  and  moved  and  had 
their  being.  We  must  show,  that,  in  the  passages 
referred  to,  nothing  but  the  Mosaic  law  can  reason- 
ably be  meant.  This  follows  from  several  considera- 
tions :  — 

I.  In  two  of  them  the  law  is  used  parallel  with 
''Covenant,"  meaning  the  conditions  which  the 
Covenant  imposes.  This  conception  must  date  back 
to  a  definite,  historical  event,  which  is,  according  to 
the  whole   Old   Testament,  the   Sinaitic   legislation. 


230         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

Hence  the  Thora  which  stands  parallel  to  the  Cove- 
nant must  be  the  Sinaitic  Thora. 

2.  The  prophetic  word  was  a  fleeting  one,  which 
had  as  yet  no  permanence  and  stability.  It  was 
God's  intention,  that  it  should  be  preserved  for  future 
generations  ;  but  till  a  relatively  late  period,  it  served 
only  the  needs  of  the  present.  It  is  therefore  im- 
probable that  Amos,  Hosea,  and  IsaiaK  should  have 
referred  their  contemporaries  to  the  words  of  earlier 
prophets,  who  had  long  ceased  to  speak,  and  of  the 
preservation  of  whose  commands  there  is  no  evi- 
dence. The  prophecies  in  their  time  were  "testi- 
mony" in  the  strictest  sense.  They  came  and  went, 
but  constituted  no  codified  law, 

3.  To  fall  back  upon  earlier  prophets  transfers,  but 
does  not  relieve,  the  difficulty.  So  far  as  we  know, 
the  mission  of  all  prophets  was  to  enforce  and  vindi- 
cate the  law.  They  never  pretend  to  introduce  a 
new  religion,  never  require  of  the  people  that  it  shall 
commit  itself  to  unreasonable  authority.  All  their 
appeals  are  addressed  to  the  conscience,  the  moral  or 
national  consciousness  of  Israel,  both  of  which  pre- 
suppose the  law  as  their  root  and  norm.  Even  Smend 
says,  "  Antiquitus  tradita  atque  accepta  esse  oporte- 
bat,  ad  quae  prophetae  provocare  poterant."  Now, 
it  will  certainly  do  to  say  that  the  younger  prophets 
appealed  to  the  older  ones,  the  later  to  the  earlier. 
But  to  what  did  the  older  and  the  earlier  appeal } 
Did  they  stand  on  their  own  authority  }  Did  tluy 
prescribe  law,  instead  of  upholding  it  1  To  this 
assertion  the  critics  must  resort,  but  it  is  out  of  all 
analogy.     Wc  touch  here  again  the  weak  spot  in  the 


2^1 


reconstructive  scheme.  Prophetism,  at  least  incipi- 
ent prophetism,  hangs  in  the  air.  It  had  no  seed  to 
spring  from,  no  soil  to  root  in  :  its  origin  and  growth 
are  involved  in  a  profound  mystery.  The  early 
prophets,  we  claim,  must  have  stood  on  the  platform 
constructed  by  Moses. 

Next  comes  the  passage  Hos.  viii.  12,  which  de- 
serves to  occupy  a  place  by  itself,  — 

Oii/n^  '^P^?  'j?1ij">  '12"^   '1^  ^^^??^- 

We  follow  the  reading  of  the  Kethib,  and  translate 
131  "ten  thousand." 

Our  first  remark  is,  that  'r\^)r\  m  can  by  no  means 
refer  to  prophetic  teaching.  It  does  not  matter 
whether  we  take  i3"i  in  apposition,  or  as  the  nonicji 
rcgens  of  'n"nn  :  in  either  case,  the  reference  must  be 
to  law  proper.  The  prophetic  Thora  constituted  one 
whole  :  it  appears  as  synonymous  with  "'  "i^"!,  a  mere 
abstraction.  Accordingly,  neither  translation — "My 
Thora,  ten  thousand,"  or  "Ten  thousand  of  my 
Thora"  —  will  apply  to  it.  Also  the  word  3inDX  pre- 
cludes all  other  meanings  than  that  of  written  law. 
The  prophets,  as  remarked  above,  did  not  teach  their 
contemporaries  by  writing,  but  by  the  living  word. 

We  may  infer  that  the  idea  of  a  written  law  was 
very  familiar  in  Hosea's  time.  Whether  this  verse 
contains  a  definite  allusion  to  law  actually  written, 
will  depend  partly  on  the  context,  partly  on  the  con- 
struction of  :3inDX. 

Keil  takes  the  latter  as  an  historical  present,  from 
which   the   meaninc;  would    result,    "  I  have  written 


232  THE  PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

ten  thousand  precepts  of  my  law  [in  the  time  of 
Moses],  which  still  exist."  But  there  is  no  evidence 
that  the  Hebrew  future  ever  has  such  a  sense.  It  is 
not  equivalent  to  the  Greek  perfect,  but  to  the  Latin 
imperfect,  and  denotes  repeated  action  ;  so  that  the 
meaning  would  be,  that  God  by  Moses,  and  afterwards 
by  the  prophets,  had  repeatedly  prescribed  law  to 
Israel. 

This  is,  indeed,  Ewald's  interpretation.  There  is 
no  evidence,  however,  of  such  a  legal  literature  as 
Ewald  imagines  to  have  existed. 

We  may  explain  the  future  with  Hitzig  as  purely 
hypothetical :  "Though  I  had  written  ten  thousand," 
etc.  But  how  could  the  multitude  of  commandm.ents 
increase  the  guilt  of  disobedience  }  We  would  ex- 
pect that  in  this  case,  the  prophet  had  taken  as 
small  a  number  as  possible  to  express  this  idea. 

Smend  does  i:^ot  understand  the  i:^"*  of  numerous 
commands,  but  rather  in  a  qualitative  sense,  com- 
mands minutely  stated.  This  certainly  yields  a 
meaning  appropriate  to  the  context,  but  is  less  suit- 
able to  the  hypothetical  interpretation. 

Two  more  views  are  possible.  Either  we  may 
take  the  future  as  a  pracscns  Jiistoricnvi,  not  in 
Keil's  sense  of  the  Greek  perfect,  but  in  the  sense 
of  a  simple  Hebrew  perfect,  for  which,  in  the  alac- 
rity of  discourse,  it  is  often  substituted  (Gesenius, 
§  127,  4  c),  or  we  can  understand  the  future  to  intro- 
duce a  conditional  clause,  —  ''Even  when  I  write  to 
him  ten  thousand  of  my  law,  they  are  counted  as 
nothing." 

Wc  must  choose  between  the  last  two  construe- 


TESTIMONY  OF   THE   EARLY  PROPHETS.      233 

tions,  either  of  which  presupposes  the  existence  of  a 
written  divine  law  in  the  days  of  Hosea. 

The  context  furnishes  no  sufficient  data  to  deter- 
mine wliat  the  contents  of  this  law  were.  Only  ver. 
II  might  give  us  a  glimpse.  ''Because  Ephraim  has 
made  many  altars  to  sin,  his  altars  shall  be  unto  him 
to  sin."  Ewald  considers  the  two  members  of  the 
verse  as  expressing  the  same  thought,  which  would 
be  nothing  more  than  a  truism.  The  sin  which  the 
Israelites  had  committed  consciously  in  erecting  the 
many  altars,  cannot  be  the  sin  to  which  God's  right- 
eous judgment  gave  them  up.  It  must  have  been  a 
new  phase  of  evil  consequent  upon  the  former.  The 
most  natural  explanation  is,  that  because  Israel 
sinned  in  transgressing  the  command,  which  required 
unity  of  worship,  the  many  altars  would  be  produc- 
tive of  the  further  sin  of  apostasy  and  idolatry.  One 
sin  was  punished  by  a  process,  a  sliding  scale  of 
sin.  With  this  interpretation  and  the  immediately 
following  statement  of  ver.  12,  "that  God's  com- 
mands were  counted  for  nothing,"  we  can  hardly  fail 
to  recognize  in  it  an  allusion  to  the  Deuteronomic 
Code,  whose  principal  aim  was  to  enforce  unity  of 
the  sanctuary. 

Smend,  in  his  "Moses  apud  Prophetas,"  admits  all 
this  in  principle,  and  still  refuses  to  see  in  it  a  proof 
of  the  existence  of  the  Pentateuchal  Codes.  He 
says  (p.  13),  "  Itaque  Hoseae  verba  octavo  saeculo, 
apud  Ephraimitas  muitas  leges  scriptas  fuisse  com- 
probant  .  .  .  quamvis  a  magna  populi  parte  negliger- 
entur  .  .  .  ut  adeo  divini  juris  videantur,  acsi  ab 
ipso  Jchova  scriptae  essent."     Page  19,   "Certe  plu- 


234         ^-^^   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

rimas  illas  leges  quariim  Hosea  mentionem  facit,  ad 
Mosem  inventorem  relatas  esse  putandum  est."  His 
argument  for  this  is  quite  conclusive.  All  laws,  ac- 
cording to  the  prophets,  have  their  foundation  in  the 
Covenant  between  God  and  the  people.  But  the 
Covenant  was  Sinaitic  :  "  Re  vera  semel  in  Monte 
Sinai  per  Mosem  junctum  esse,  traditione  certissima 
atque  unanimi  antiquitas  constabat.  Ni  [Moses]  fuis- 
set,  prophetarum  munus  ne  cogitari  quidem  potuis- 
set." 

These  remarkable  confessions  give  all  that  can  be 
reasonably  demanded.  There  were  many  written 
laws,  which  the  prophet  and  his  contemporaries 
ascribed  to  Moses.  They  were  universally  neg- 
lected. Though  their  contents  cannot  be  accurately 
determined,  nothing  contradictory  to  the  Pentateu- 
chal  Codes  is  ever  approved  of.  The  Sinaitic  legis- 
lation was  considered  as  an  historical  fact.  And, 
after  having  granted  all  this,  the  critic  stands  up  in 
his  own  authority,  and  declares,  '*  At  libros  illos,  si 
quidem  multi  erant  non  ex  antiquissimis  temporibus 
Mosis  originem  traxisse  jure  concludas  !  "  We  ask 
with  what  right }  Does  critical  scepticism  go  so  far 
as  to  deny  the  credibility  of  the  prophets'  testimony 
for  the  time  that  lay  behind  them  1  When  Hosea 
says  that  God  gave  the  law  at  Sinai  through  Moses, 
shall  the  critics  say.  It  cannot  have  been,  laws  must 
have  gradually  appeared  .''  Or,  do  they  desire  that 
Hosea  and  Amos  shall  tell  us  in  so  many  words, 
*' The  laws  which  we  refer  to  are  no  other  than  the 
Mosaic  Codes  "  }  There  is  no  evidence  that  any  col- 
lection of  laws  ever  existed   but   the   Mosaic.     And 


TESTIMONY  OF   THE   EARLY  PROPHETS.      235 


we  must  deny  to  the  critics  the  right  of  substitutin< 
an  imaginary  one,  to  do  away  with  the  plain  meanin< 
of  Hosea's  words. 


As  in  the  historical  books,  we  do  not  believe  that 
much  can  here  be  made  of  the  ceremonial  usages  and 
religious  customs  referred  to  by  the  prophets.  When 
we  would  array  it  as  evidence  of  the  existence  of  the 
Codes,  Wellhausen  would  from  his  stajid-point  have 
the  right  to  remind  us,  "  Legem  non  habentes  natura 
faciunt  legis  opera."  Once  more  our  attitude  must 
be  an  apologetic  one.  We  must  show  that  the  Codes 
may  have  existed.' 

First  of  all,  the  critics  discover  in  these  prophets 
an  antagonism  against  the  priesthood  and  ceremonial 
institutions  in  general,  and  consider  them  as  de- 
fenders of  a  more  spiritual  type  of  religion.  The 
principal  passages  are:  Amos  v.  21,  seqq.,  viii.  10; 
Isa.  i.  II,  scqq.,  xxix.  13  ;  Mic.  vi.  6-8  ;  Hos.  vi.  6, 
vii.  14,  x.  12,  xii.  6.  Dr.  Kuenen  says,  "The  prophets 
nowhere  insist  upon  fidelity  in  observing  the  holy 
ceremonies.  On  the  contrary,  they  speak  of  them 
with  an  indifference  which  borders  upon  disapproval, 
sometimes  even  with  unfeigned  aversion." 

It  must  be  remembered,  that  Rosea  and  Amos 
prophesied  in  the  Northern  kingdom,  where  there 
was  no  legal  Aaronic  priesthood.  The  priests  op- 
posed by  the  prophets  were  no  rightful  priests.  Still, 
they  are  hardly  ever  condemned  in  this  official  capa- 
city, but  for  lack  of  knowledge,  for  being  murderers, 

I  On  this  point,  compare  what  was  said  on  a  previous  page  in  regard  to 
the  historical  books. 


236         THE  PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

robbers,  etc.  The  point  at  issue  is,  whether  the 
prophets  condemned  the  ceremonies  per  se,  or  on 
account  of  their  wrong  performance.  An  unpre- 
judiced examination  of  tlie  evidence  will  not  leave  us 
in  doubt  on  which  side  the  truth  lies.  We  note  the 
following  points  of  decisive  importance  :  — 

I.  If  the  ceremonies  had  been  condemned  by  the 
prophets  pe?'  sc,  in  contrast  with  a  more  spiritual 
religion,  Jehovah's  attitude  ought  to  have  been  repre- 
sented as  one  of  indifference  towards  them.  This  is 
not  the  case.  When  Kuenen  speaks  of  *'  indifference 
bordering  upon  disapproval,  sometimes  unfeigned 
aversion,"  all  these  words  are  not  synonymous  :  in- 
deed, they  are  mutually  exclusive.  God  disapproves 
of  the  ceremonies,  not  for  formal,  but  for  material, 
reasons.  He  hates,  despises,  the  feast-days.  He  will 
not  smell  in  their  solemn  assemblies  :  his  ears  revolt 
against  the  melody  of  their  viols.  The  ritual  is 
represented  as  offensive  in  the  highest  degree.  W^e 
are  warranted  to  draw  from  such  positive  terms  two 
conclusions:  (i)  There  must  have  been  a  positive 
element  of  sin  in  the  ritual  performances  which  the 
prophets  condemn.  (2)  The  very  fact,  that  they 
offend  God,  awake  his  hatred  and  revolt,  shows  that 
he  stands  in  a  sort  of  necessary  relation  towards 
them.  He  cannot  disregard  or  abolish  the  ceremo- 
nies, but  is  obliged  {sit  venia  vcrbo)  to  attend,  to  see, 
to  hear.  No  stronger  evidence  could  be  furnished 
that  the  ritual  was  a  divine  institution,  and  recog- 
nized as  such  by  the  prophets.  Isa.  i.  14  is  very  in- 
structive in  this  respect  :  "  They  are  a  trouble  unto 
me;  I  am  zveary  to  bear  them." 


TESTIMONY  OF   THE   EARLY  PROPHETS.      237 

2.  Ceremonies  and  true  piety  were  so  closely  allied 
in  the  religious  consciousness  of  the  time,  that  even 
evil-doers  thought  they  could  either  conciliate  by 
them  the  favor  of  God,  or  at  least  secure  the  es- 
teem of  the  pious.  That  the  right  conception  of 
sacrifices  was  known  and  shared  by  the  prophets, 
is  not  disproved  by  this  self-righteous  abuse  of 
the  wicked,  but  on  the  contrary  presupposed  by 
it. 

3.  The  high  esteem  in  which  the  prophets  held 
the  ceremonial,  and  how  far  the  idea  of  emancipating 
Israel  from  it  was  outside  of  their  intentions,  are 
shown  incidentally  several  times.  In  Amos  vii.  17, 
the  Lord  threatens  Amaziah  "that  he  shall  die  in 
a  polluted  land."  There  is  a  climax  in  the  verse: 
of  all  evils  which  would  befall  the  priest,  this  dying 
in  a  polluted  land  would  be  the  most  formidable  one. 
The  land  and  the  priest  are  called  pure,  not  on 
account  of  their  piety,  but  on  account  of  the  out- 
ward worship  and  cultus  of  the  true  Jehovah,  which 
was  lacking  in  heathen  lands.  Now,  if  this  ritual, 
as  it  was  represented  in  a  wicked  priest,  was  still 
sufficiently  sacred  to  make  the  land  of  Israel  pure, 
we  surely  are  not  warranted  to  consider  Jehovah  and 
his  prophets  as  despisers  of  the  ceremonies.  The 
soil  itself  contracted  purity  and  impurity  from  the 
worship  of  its  inhabitants.  Smend  calls  this  senti- 
ment "  Levitismus."  Of  the  same  character  is  the 
passage  Hos.  ix.  1-6  :  "They  shall  eat  unclean  things 
in  Assyria  :  .  .  .  their  sacrifices  shall  be  unto  them 
as  the  bread  of  mourners  ;  all  that  eat  thereof  shall 
be  polluted,"  etc.   (compare  also  iii.  4).     Smend  con- 


238          THE   PENrATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

fesses,  ''(Qui)  talia  judicent  iis  quae  in  ipso  Levitico 
inveniuntur  nihil  cedunt." 

4.  Tlie  jDassage  Isa.  xxix.  13,  which  has  been 
claimed  in  favor  of  the  critical  view,  teaches,  properly 
interpreted,  exactly  the  opposite.  The  contrast  is 
not  between  commands  given  by  man  and  commands 
prescribed  by  God,  but  between  those  learned  from 
man  and  those  learned  from  God.  The  former  rep- 
resents mere  external  ritualism  ;  the  latter  inward 
piety,  expressing-  itself  in  outward  forms.  The  cere- 
monial worship  of  the  people  was  not  a  spontaneous 
manifestation  of  spiritual-mindedness,  but  worthless 
compliance  with  a  form  from  self-righteous  motives. 
This  externalism  is  strikingly  characterized  as  ''doing 
precepts  learned  from  men."  Of  course,  nothing  as 
to  the  origin  of  these  precepts  is  decided  thereby. 

5.  The  estimate  put  by  the  prophets  on  the  ritual 
system  is  throughout  very  favorable.  Isaiah  asso- 
ciates it  with  the  vision  of  his  great  commission 
(chap.  vi.).  He  sees  an  altar  (ver.  6),  and  smoke 
(of  sacrifices.^)  (ver.  4).  The  Egyptians,  when  con- 
verted, will  erect  an  altar  and  a  rnazzebah  (pillar)  for  a 
monumental  purpose,  do  sacrifice  and  oblation,  vow 
a  vow,  and  perform  it  (chap.  xix.  19,  scqq.).  Jehovah 
has  a  fire  in  Zion  and  a  furnace  in  Jerusalem  (xxxi. 
9).  In  Hos.  iv.  4  it  is  counted  the  highest  contu- 
macy to  strive  with  a  priest. 

6.  The  passage  Amos  v.  25,  26,  seems  to  deserve 
a  closer  examination.  We  do  not  intend  to  in- 
quire into  the  kind  of  idolatry  of  which  the  verse 
speaks,  but  simply  raise  the  question,  whether  Amos 
denies  in  this  passage  the  antiquity  of  the  ritual  in 


TESTIMONY  OF   THE   EARLY  PROPHETS.      239 

general,  or  at  least  of  the  ritual  as  it  was  in  his 
day. 

The  verse  has  been  interpreted  in  the  most  vari- 
ous ways.  The  question  of  paramount  importance  is, 
whether  a  positive  or  negative  answer  was  expected 
by  the  prophet.  That  he  supposed  the  answer  to  be 
obvious,  is  clear  ;  so  much  so,  that  he  did  not  even 
think  it  necessary  to  add  it. 

Vaihinger  and  Kuenen  claim  that  an  affirmative 
answer  is  presupposed.  Kuenen  gives  as  the  mean- 
ing, that  the  Israelites  had  combined  the  offering  of 
sacrifices  to  God  with  idolatry,  and  that  the  prophet 
takes  this  as  proof  of  the  worthlessness  of  sacrifices, 
which  were  consistent  with  the  greatest  apostasy. 
To  this  interpretation,  there  are  the  following  ob- 
jections :  {a)  The  use  of  n,  and  not  5<Sn,  leads  us  to 
expect  a  negative  answer.  Though  n  may  be  fol- 
lowed by  an  affirmation,  it  is  only  where  the  answer 
is  doubtful,  never  where  it  is  considered  as  self-evi- 
dent, {b)  If  the  co-existence  of  Jehovah-worship 
and  idolatry  were  emphasized,  we  would  expect  in  ver. 
26  a  1  consecut.  cum  fiUuro  ;  but  there  is  a  perfect. 
Djnj?y;j\  {c)  The  argument  would  have  been  very  incon- 
clusive to  the  contemporaries  of  the  prophet.  That  the 
sacrifices  of  their  idolatrous  ancestors  were  worthless, 
proved  nothing  against  theirs.  And  if  those  who  are 
addressed  here  were  idolaters  themselves,  the  prophet 
would  not  have  used  such  a  far-fetched  argument. 

The  majority  of  commentators  admit  that  the 
words  imply  that  the  Israelites  did  not  sacrifice  to 
Jehovah  in  the  desert.  But  they  differ  widely  as  to 
the  reason  assigned  for  this  :  — 


240          THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

{a)  It  is  most  commonly  held,  that  the  suspension 
of  sacrificial  worship  was  a  result  of  the  idolatry  de- 
scribed in  ver.  26,  whatever  that  may  have  been.  So 
Keil  and  Hitzig  and  many  others.  Against  this  in- 
terpretation, the  following  objections  are  urged : 
I.  The  order  of  the  w^ords  in  the  Hebrew.  It  is 
claimed,  if  Jehovah  were  contrasted  with  strange 
gods,  the  question  would  have  been  introduced  by 
'^H)  ^vith  the  emphasis  on  inc.  2.  The  example  of 
the  forty  years'  wandering  in  the  desert  was,  accord- 
ing to  Keil,  intended  to  show  how,  from  the  begin- 
ning, the  Israelites  were  a  perverse  and  apostate 
people.  But  how  can,  in  ver.  21-24,  the  excess  of 
ceremonial,  and  in  ver.  25,  the  suspension  of  the 
same,  be  urged  alike  as  a  proof  of  Israel's  iniquity.'' 

{b)  The  same  objection  bears  against  the  view  of 
those  who  separate  ver.  25  from  the  preceding  verses. 
They  understand  that  the  prophet  addresses  in  this 
verse  other  persons  than  in  ver.  21-24.  After  hav- 
ing rebuked  those  who  self-righteously  put  their  trust 
in  sacrifices,  he  now  proceeds  to  condemn  the  false 
security  of  others  based  on  the  Covenant  of  Sinai  by 
reminding  them  that  the  Covenant  had  already  been 
broken  in  the  desert.  But  there  is  no  trace  in  the  con- 
text of  a  transition  from  the  persons  first  addressed 
to  others. 

(c)  Smend's  interpretation  is,  that  the  prophet 
wishes  to  show  that  God's  favor  was  not  dependent 
on  outward  ceremonies,  and  that  for  this  purpose  he 
refers  to  the  sojourn  in  the  wilderness,  during  which, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  ritual  was  neces- 
sarily suspended,  still  God's  favor  was  not  withdrawn. 


TESTIMONY  OF   THE   EARLY  PROPHETS.      24 1 

Of  course,  this  makes  it  necessary  to  understana 
ver.  26  either  of  the  present  or  of  the  future. 
Smend  translates  with  Ewald  :  ''Ergo  tolletis  ;  i.e., 
cum  idolis  vestris  exsulatum  abibitis."  To  this  view 
it  may  be  objected,  i.  We  would,  if  the  subjects  of 
ver.  25  and  26  were  not  the  same,  expect  to  see  the 
latter  introduced  by  nrii'i,  or  something  analogous. 
2.  It  is  doubtful  whether  the  preterite  can  be  used 
in  this  connection  in  the  future  sense,  which  Smend 
ascribes  to  it.  We  may  add,  however,  that  it  is  ne- 
cessary to  take  the  verb  in  ver.  27  as  a  future,  and 
why  not,  then,  ver,  26  also  .?  3.  The  forty  years'  wan- 
dering in  the  desert  are  always  considered  elsewhere 
as  a  period  of  apostasy,  in  which  God's  favor  was 
actually  withdrawn.  The  only  consideration  in  favor 
of  this  view  lies  in  the  separation  of  ver.  25  from 
the  verses  21-23  by  ver.  24.  The  latter  verse  seems 
to  begin  the  statement  of  what  God  did  require  in 
contrast  with  what  he  did  not  demand  in  ver.  21-23. 
We  might  infer  from  this,  that  the  conduct  of  the 
Israelites  in  the  desert  is  referred  to  as  an  exponent 
of  what  was  really  well-pleasing  to  God. 

We  do  not  pretend  to  give  a  new  and  better 
explanation  of  this  difficult  passage  than  any  one 
stated  above.  But  we  have  certainly  shown  that 
nothing  can  be  inferred  from  it  inconsistent  with  the 
high  antiquity  of  the  Sinaitic  legislation.  We  may 
once  more  quote  Smend,  who  says  with  regard  to  it, 
"Attam'en  falluntur  qui  quum  certas  Pentateuchi 
leges  recentiores  esse  contendunt  se  Amoso  teste  uti 
putant." 


242  THE   FENTATEUCI/AL    CODES  MOSAIC. 


CHAPTER    XIX. 

TESTIMONY  OF  THE  POETICAL  BOOKS. 

DELITZSCH  assures  us  that  the  Hterature  of  the 
time  of  David  and  Solomon  presupposes  the  ex- 
istence of  the  entire  Thora  in  its  present  form.  He 
verifies  this  statement  by  several  quotations,  of  which 
the  greater  part  do  doubtless  show  acquaintance  with 
the  Pentateuch.  Still,  we  would  be  greatly  mistaken 
if  we  considered  his  argument  as  decisive.  What 
Delitzsch  assigns  to  the  Davidic  and  Solomonic  age, 
becomes  with  our  present  critics  the  product  of  a 
much  later  time.  Reuss  supposes  Job  to  have  been 
written  about  the  time  of  the  destruction  of  the 
Northern  kingdom,  before  Deuteronomy  and  the 
Priest  Code  were  as  yet  in  existence ;  and  that 
the  'Song  of  Solomon  was  composed  shortly  after  the 
schism.  He  declares  that  his  doubts  do  not  go  so 
far  as  to  deny  to  the  period  of  the  Kings  the  compo- 
sition of  any  Psalm  whatever.  After  this  magnani- 
mous and  liberal  concession,  he  hastens  to  add  that 
it  must  be  limited  to  the  first  division  of  the  Psalter, 
which  originally  contained  Ps.  iii.-xli.  Even  the 
largest  part  of  this  is  post-Deuteronomic,  the  whole 
collection  not  pre-exilic  ;  and  for  our  present  purpose 
we  would  retain  nothing  more  than  Ps.  ii.,  xviii.,  xx., 


TESTinrOAry  OF   THE   POETICAL   BOOKS.       243 

xxi.  (xl\^,  xlvi.,  xlix.).  Probably  the  Psalter  contains 
no  Davidic  Psalms  at  all. 

He  claims  that  the  Solomonic  authorship  of  not  a 
single  line  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs  can  be  proved. 
The  book,  as  a  whole,  was  published  after  the  exile. 
Koheleth  (Ecclesiastes)  is  remanded  to  the  time  of 
the  Ptolemies,  200  B.C. 

Reuss,  however,  goes  farther,  especially  with  re- 
gard to  the  Psalms,  than  the  very  boldest  among 
German  doubters  have  done.  Hitzig  and  Ewald 
agree  on  the  Davidic  origin  of  at  least  Ps.  iii.,  iv., 
vii.,  viii.,  xi.,  xix.^  Ewald  admits  in  addition,,  ii.,  xx., 
xxi.,  xxiv.,  xxix.,  xxxii.,  ex.  Hitzig,  on  the  other 
hand,  ix.,  x.,  xii.,  xiii.,  xv.,  xvi.,  xvii.,  xix.^  Leaving 
out  of  the  account  those  Psalms  which  both  Hitzig 
and  Ewald  consider  as  pre-Deuteronomic,  we  obtain 
the  number  of  twenty-one  Psalms,  to  wdiich  we  may 
safely  appeal,  without  being  suspected  of  traditional 
prejudice  in  calling  our  witnesses. 

After  all  this  deduction,  our  harvest  must  be  scanty. 
Its  power  lies,  not  so  much  in  the  number  of  wit- 
nesses as  in  the  unequivocal  character  of  their  testi- 
mony. A  single  indisputable  mention  of  the  Thora, 
or  reference  to  it,  outweighs  many  arguments  e  si- 
lentio.     The  former  leaves  no  choice  :  the  latter  do. 

A  most  important  objection  to  the  newer  theory 
of  religious  development  may  be  drawn  from  the 
deep  spiritual  conceptions,  the  lofty  moral  senti- 
ments, which  these  Davidic  Psalms  breathe  through- 
out. A  David  who  was  the  prototype  of  the  picture 
drawn  by  the  critics  could  not  have  written  such 
hymns.     He    could    by   no   means    have   anticipated 


244  THE    PENTATEUCnAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

what  lay  hidden  in  the  future  consciousness  of  proph- 
etism  two  centuries  after  his  reign.  All  the  laws 
of  development  protest  against  it.  Moreover,  there 
is  no  trace  in  his  songs  of  that  peculiar  re-action 
against  an  exaggerated  ritual  which  characterizes  the 
prophets  of  the  ninth  and  the  eighth  centuries.  The 
outward  is  here  the  clear  mirror  in  which  the  in- 
ward throws  its  spontaneous  reflex.  This  leads  to 
a  twofold  observation:  i.  When  spiritual  religion 
and  ceremonial  worship  conflicted  afterwards,  this 
cannot  have  been  the  original,  normal  relation,  but 
must  be  considered  as  the  result  of  externalization 
of  the  ritual.  Thus,  the  testimony  of  the  prophets, 
that  Israel's  religious  state  was  one  of  apostasy,  is 
verified  anew.  2.  This  spiritual  conception  of  the 
law  as  we  find  it  in  David  cannot  be  the  product  of  a 
natural  development,  but  testifies  to  a  divine  origin 
of  both  the  spirit  and  the  letter.  Whether  a  devel- 
opment of  religion  by  contrasts  on  the  principle  of 
negativity  may,  or  may  not,  account  for  the  opposi- 
tion to  ceremonies  on  the  part  of  the  prophets,  it  cer- 
tainly fails  to  explain  the  synthesis  of  this  spiritual 
appreciation  in  David.  The  following  passages  are 
noteworthy  in  this  respect  :  Ps.  iv.  5,  seqq.,  vii.  8,  9, 
scqq.,  XV.,  passim,  xx.  3,  seqq.,  xxiv.  3,  4,  and  especially 
the  whole  of  xxxii. 

The  "judgments"  of  the  Lord  are  mentioned  (x. 
5)  ;  his  words  (xii.  6),  ''his  judgments  and  statutes" 
(xviii.  22).  The  second  part  of  the  nineteenth  Psalm 
speaks  of  the  Thora  in  a  way  not  different  from  that 
in  which  a  Jew  after  the  exile  would  have  done.  It 
is  easy  to  remand  all  this  to  Maccabean  times  ;  but 


TESTIMONY  OF   THE  POETICAL   BOOKS.       245 

when  even  Hitzig  concedes  the  Daviclic  origm,  we 
may  safely  say  that  our  critics  have  no  other  reason 
to  deny  it  than  an  over-anxious  regard  for  their  own 
hypothesis. 

Zion  is  the  only  legal  sanctuary,  where  God  dwells 
in  the  centre  of  his  people  (ix.  11)  ;  the  holy  temple, 
a  symbol  of  his  heavenly  dwelling-place  (xi.  4)  ;  the 
tabernacle,  to  which  only  the  pure  and  righteous 
may  ideally  approach  (xv.  i,  seqq),  from  whence  help 
is  sent  in  the  day  of  trouble  (xx.  1,2);  his  holy  place 
(xxiv.  3),  from  whence  the  rod  of  his  strength  is 
sent  (ex.  2),  where  the  cherubs  are  attached  to  the 
ark  as  a  symbol  of  his  throne  and  power  (xviii.  10). 

It  may  also  be  remarked,  that  in  Ps.  vii.  7  the  term 
nij:.  occurs,  which,  accordmg  to  Wellhausen,  can  only 
be  understood  in  connection  with  the  Levitical  sys- 
tem, and  is  therefore  post-exilic.  The  few  instances 
that  it  occurs  in  Judges  may  be  set  to  the  account 
of  a  redactor,  but  in  a  Davidic  Psalm  this  will  not 
do.  Perhaps  also  ex.  4  implies  a  contrast  with  the 
Aaronic  priesthood. 

Ps.  xxiv.  4  reminds  us  of  the  third  commandment 
in  a  very  striking  way.  Ps.  iv.  has  several  allusions 
ro  the  very  words  of  the  Covenant-law  ;  likewise 
Ps.  xvi.  (Compare  Delitzsch  in  Luth.  Zeitschrift, 
1882,  Heft  vi.). 

Neither  do  references  to  the  historical  portions  of 
the  Pentateuch  fail.  Ps.  vii.  6,  nro^p,  "arise,"  and 
verse  7,  r\^w,  "return,"  maybe  compared  with  Num. 
X.  35,  36  (Jehovistic) ;  xvii.  8,  \\\  ^"^3  \S'd'^,  with  Deut. 
xxxii.  10,  IT;!.  \r^'^\  Ps.  xi.  6,  nn^Ji  t^,  with  Gen. 
xix.  24. 


246  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

Some  of  the  allusions  which  Delitzsch  finds  in 
Proverbs  are  of  no  use  for  our  purpose.  The  "  tree 
and  the  way  of  life"  are  both  Jehovistic;  so  that, 
when  the  critics  assign  a  relatively  late  date  to  the 
collection  of  Proverbs,  they  lose  their  value.  The 
comparison  of  Deut.  vi.  6,  8,  with  Prov.  vii.  3  ;  Lev. 
xix.  36  with  Prov.  xi.  i,  has  more  force. 

A  connection  between  Canticles  vi.  13  and  Gen. 
xxxii.  I,  2,  cannot  be  proved.  Neither  is  it  necessary 
to  translate  Job  xxxi.  33  "as  Adam."  But  the  ahu- 
sions  in  Job  xxxi.  11  to  Lev.  xviii.  17;  of  ver.  8-12 
to  Deut.  xxii.  22  ;  of  ver.  26-28  to  Deut.  xvii.  2-5, 
can  hardly  be  denied.  Even  Kuenen  calls  them  far 
from  improbable.  And,  as  we  saw,  even  Reuss  thinks 
that  Job  is  pre-Deuteronomic. 


SECOND   KINGS  XXII.   AND  NEIL    VIII.-X.      247 


CHAPTER    XX. 

SECOND   KINGS   XXII.   AND  NEH.   VIII.-X. 

TT/'E  conclude  our  survey  with  a  short  discussion 
»V  of  the  critical  view  of  the  narrative  found  in 
these  chapters.  After  all  that  has  been  said,  we 
may  approach  them  without  any  prepossession,  and 
consider  them  as  mere  historical  records,  which  have 
to  be  interpreted  in  their  own  light. 

Our  criticism  of  the  pia  f raits  theory  imposed  on 
2  Kings  xxii.  is  the  following  :  — 

I.  According  to  the  critics,  the  forgery  of  the 
Deuteronomic  Code  was  a  skilful  stroke  of  policy, 
to  which  a  despondent  reform-party  resorted  as  the 
only  means  of  reaching  its  ends.  It  had  failed  in 
the  days  of  Hezekiah,  and  its  failure  was  a  defeat. 
The  terms  in  which  Kuenen  speaks  of  the  situation, 
imply  that  the  party-lines  must  have  been  sharply 
drawn.  There  was  an  opposition  to  the  centralizing 
Mosaic  tendency  ;  and  it  was  strong,  influential,  and 
fully  on  its  guard  against  every  movement  of  the 
latter.  Notwithstanding  this,  the  bare  assertion  of 
the  reformers,  that  their  programme  was  of  Mosaic 
origin,  sufficed  to  silence  all  these  opponents,  many 
of  whom  were  doubtless  reduced  to  poverty  and  dis- 
grace,  or   even   exposed    to    death   by  the   intended 


248  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

reform.  No  trace  of  resistance  is  discovered  :  all 
the  people  stood  to  the  Covenant.  We  cannot  but 
observe  that  all  this  does  not  resemble  the  usual 
execution  of  a  coup  d'etat.  For  this  sudden  change 
in  the  relation  of  the  parties,  Dr.  Kuenen  gives  no 
other  reason  than  what  might  be  called  an  appeal  to 
the  maxim,  "  Cujus  rcgio,  2  Hi  us  rcligio.''  The  regal 
power  was  in  the  East  and  in  Judah  unlimited.  The 
majority  of  the  people  complied  with  the  will  and 
command  of  their  princes.  How  utterly  inadequate 
such  general  phrases  are  to  explain  the  pretended 
situation,  will  not  escape  any  thoughtful  observer  of 
the  facts. 

2.  It  is  improbable,  if  the  so-called  Mosaic  party 
stood  in  favor  with  the  king,  and  if  the  forgery  was 
perpetrated  within  the  very  circle  aspiring  to  such 
favor,  and  relying  upon  it  for  future  success,  that 
the  author  or  authors  would  have  extended  their 
threatenings  to  the  monarch  himself  in  such  a  way 
as  is  here  done  (Deut.  xxviii.  36). 

3.  If  the  chief  or  only  ends  which  the  forgers  had 
in  view  were  abolition  of  idolatry  and  Bamoth-wor- 
ship,  it  is  hard  to  see  why  they  put  themselves  to  the 
unnecessary  trouble  of  writing  a  whole  Code,  con- 
taining numerous  laws  which  served  no  present  pur- 
pose whatever. 

4.  It  should  also  be  remembered,  that  the  practice 
of  forgery,  as  it  is  now  claimed  by  the  critics  for  the 
origin  of  Deuteronomy  and  the  Priest  Code,  stands 
unparalleled  in  the  whole  domain  of  Old-Testament 
literature.  The  Pseudepigraphae  are  all  of  later  date, 
and  without  exception  owe  their  origin  to  far  lower 


SECOND   KINGS  XX 11.    AND   NEH.    VIII -X.      249 

tendencies  than  we  are  warranted  to  ascribe  to  the 
M'osaic  party  of  King  Josiah's  time. 

We  now  turn  to  Neh.  viii.-x.  The  credibility  of 
these  chapters  was  at  first  doubted  by  Dr.  Kuenen 
in  1861.  Afterwards,  in '  1870,  he  retracted  these 
doubts ;  since  his  whole  hypothesis  respecting  the 
origin  of  the  Priest  Code  was  based  on  the  facts 
wdiich  they  contain.  The  two  important  and  de- 
cisive questions  to  be  answered  here  are,  — 

1.  What  portion  of  the  Pentateuch  did  the  law 
read  by  Ezra  comprehend  } 

2.  What  inferences  may  be  drawn  from  Ezra's 
knowledge  and  the  people's  ignorance  of  this  law } 

To  the  first, question,  critics  have  but  one  answer. 
Unanimously  they  declared  the  book  of  the  law  to 
have  been  the  priestly  legislation.  To  prove  this, 
they  commonly  refer  to  what  is  said  regarding  the 
feast  of  tabernacles.  We  must  remark,  however, 
that  this  is  far  from  settling  the  point  in  dispute. 
That  Lev.  xxiii.  belonged  to  the  law  that  was  read, 
by  no  means  shows  that  the  Priest  Code  alone  con- 
stituted this  law.  So  far  from  this  being  the  case, 
there  are  several  reasons  which  forbid  us  to  assume  it. 

I.  The  reading  was  continued  for  at  least  ten  days, 
and  the  first  day  for  six  hours.  The  terms  seem  to 
imply  that  this  reading  was  not  a  mere  rehearsal  of 
what  had  been  read  before.  It  is,  then,  necessary  to 
assume  that  the  law-book  was  more  comprehensive 
than  Leviticus.  When  we  remember  that  the  Deu- 
teronomic  Code  was  read  before  the  king  and  the 
people  at  one  time,  this  conclusion  will  appear  all 
the  n;crc  necessary. 


250         THE  FENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

2.  The  reading  of  the  law  seems  to  have  been  in 
execution  of  the  command,  Deut.  xxxi.  11.  Though 
Deuteronomy  speaks  only  of  each  seventh  year,  we 
can  easily  conceive  that  the  first  opportunity  to  com- 
ply with  the  newly  published  command  was  eagerly 
seized  upon.  From  Neh.  x.  31,  it  appears  that 
hitherto  the  Year  of  Jubilee  had  not  been  observed. 
It  was  therefore  necessary  to  compute  the  seven 
years  from  the  publication  of  the  law  onward  ;  and 
thus  the  current  year  became,  ipso  facto^  a  Sabbath- 
year,  which  required  the  reading  of  the  law.  We 
conclude  that  not  only  the  Priest  Code,  but  also  the 
Deuteronomic  law,  was  read. 

3.  Evidently  the  confession  made  by  the  Levites 
on  the  twenty-fourth  day  of  the  month,  contained  in 
chap,  ix.,  is  in  substance  and  form  the  echo  of  the 
frequent  and  diligent  study  of  the  newly  published 
law  during  the  three  previous  weeks.  Its  contents 
furnish  the  best  means  of  identifying  the  law  referred 
to.  Now,  a  careful  examination  will  convince  us  that 
this  confession  is  full  of  reminiscences,  not  only  of 
the  Elohistic  narrative,  but  just  as  well  of  that  of  the 
Jehovist  and  of  Deuteronomy. 

4.  The  promises  made  by  the  people  are  charac- 
teristic of  the  Jehovistic  and  Deuteronomic  law.  As 
such  we  note  :  the  promise  not  to  intermarry  with 
strange  nations  (Neh.  x.  30;  Exod.  xxxiv.  16;  Deut. 
vii.  3),  the  promise  to  intermit  the  exaction  of  debts 
every  seventh  year  (ver.  31  ;  Deut.  xv.  2),  the  promise 
to  offer  the  corn,  the  new  wine,  and  oil  (ver.  37,  39; 
Deut.  xii.  17). 

All  these  considerations  favor  the  view,  that  Ezra 


SECOND   KINGS  XX IL   AND   NEH.    VIII.-X.      25 1 

did  not  publish  the  Priest  Code  merely,  but  the 
whole  Mosaic  Thora,  Elohist  and  Jehovist  and  Deu- 
teronomist.  The  historical  credibility  of  the  narra- 
tive cannot  be  doubted.  The  confession,  as  reported 
in  chap,  ix.,  must  be  authentic.  In  denying  it,  the 
critics  would  destroy  the  only  basis  on  which  they 
rest  their  theory  of  the  Ezraic  origin  of  the  Priest 
Code. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  second  question.  What 
are  we  to  hold  respecting  Ezra's  relation  to  the  law, 
which  he  is  said  to  have  read  before  the  people  t 

It  has  become  almost  an  axiom  with  the  latest 
critics,  that  Ezra  was,  if  not  the  author,  at  least  the 
redactor,  of  the  Elohistic  legislation.  ''The  law  of 
God  was  in  his  hand"  (Ezra  vii.  14)  when  he  went 
to  Jerusalem,  in  the  year  458  B.C.  Between  this 
date  and  the  return  under  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua, 
536  B.C.,  lies  a  period  of  nearly  eighty  years,  con- 
cerning whose  history,  as  far  as  the  remaining  exiles 
are  concerned,  we  know  absolutely  nothing.  This 
utter  ignorance  has  afforded  the  critics  a  splendid 
chance  to  spin  out  their  famous  theory  of  the  gradual 
origin  of  the  Priest  Code.  Where  history  has  left 
no  record,  conjectural  criticism  has  not  only  free 
play,  but  seems  to  a  certain  extent  justified  and 
commendable. 

The  starting-point  is  Ezekiel's  programme.  Kue- 
nen  and  others  are  candid  enough  to  admit  that  his 
work  is  no  just  exponent  of  the  general  sentiment 
prevailing  among  the  exiles.  In  his  time  his  figure 
is  unique.  So  far  as  Ezekiel's  testimony  goes,  the 
people   of   his   day  were   by  no   means  •  the  priestly 


252  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

Israel  which  the  prophet  describes  in  his  visionary 
Thora.  We  have  no  ground  to  assume,  that,  besides 
him,  others  were  occupied  with  the  elaboration  of  a 
ritualistic  system.  In  his  own  words  (specially  chap. 
XX.),  his  priestly  character  stands  out  in  bold  contrast 
with  the  indifference  or  anti-Jahvistic  tendencies  of 
the  mass.  Even  the  following  generation  seems  not 
to  have  been  influenced  by  his  Thora,  as  no  traces  of 
an  attempt  to  execute  it  appear.  We  believe  that 
the  Book  of  Ezekiel,  as  a  whole,  does  not  give  the 
impression  that  the  exiles  troubled  themselves  in 
Babylon  with  writing  priestly  law. 

Far  less  can  the  theory  find  support  in  the  writ- 
ings of  the  pretended  Deutero-Isaiah.  If  he  wrote 
immediately  before  the  capture  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus, 
we  have  but  one  explicit  testimony  the  more,  that, 
among  the  best  elements  of  the  captivity,  no  such 
priestly  tendencies  prevailed.  Deutero-Isaiah  speaks 
"like  one  of  the  old  prophets,"  if  not  actually,  still 
seemingly  opposed  to  all  ritualism.  Isa.  Iviii.  is  deci- 
sive in  this  respect. 

Neither  does  it  appear  that  special  stress  was  laid 
on  the  priestly  cerem.onial  side  of  their  religion  by 
the  exiles  who  returned'  in  536.  We  need  not 
assume  that  intentional  disobedience  prevailed  at 
the  beginning,  but  that  soon  a  lack  of  zeal  manifested 
itself  may  be  seen  from  Haggai  and  Zechariah. 
How  much  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  found  to  reform  after- 
wards, is  abundantly  known.  Surely,  if  such  an  at- 
tachment to  the  temple-service  and  the  ceremonial 
side  of  the  national  life  had  existed  among  the  exiles 
in  Babylon,  as  could  produce  a  lively  interest  in  the 


SECOND  KINGS  XXII.   AND   NEII    VIII-X.      253 

law,  even  as  to  its  theoretical  aspects,  we  may  take 
for  granted  that  the  history  of  the  new  colony  would 
have  shaped  itself  differently. 

These  are  positively  all  the  data  from  which  we 
can  obtain  any  a  priori  information  as  to  the  eight 
decades  which,  according  to  many  critics  at  present, 
enclose  the  mysterious  birth  of  a  whole  legal  system 
in  their  unknown  and  ever  unknowable  history.  A 
posteriori  there  is  but  a  single  fact  which  gives  us  a 
glimpse  into  the  dark  past,  —  the  fact  that  Ezra  came 
from  Babylon,  with  the  law  in  his  hand,  as  the  ready 
scribe,  evidently  with  the  purpose  to  instruct  his 
countrymen,  and  revive  their  zeal  for  the  work  of 
God  amongst  them. 

A  correct  estimate  of  these  historical  data  will 
immediately  show  whether  the  view,  that  during 
these  eighty  years  the  Priest  Code  was  framed, 
deserves  to  be  put  on  the  list  of  plausible  theories, 
or  under  the  head  of  ''legal  fictions,"  fanciful  and 
arbitrary  alike. 

Notwithstanding  our  utter  lack  of  historical  infor- 
mation, Kuenen,  Wellhausen,  and  Reuss  undertake 
to  tell  us  how  within  its  limits  the  priestly  laws  suc- 
cessively made  their  appearance.  There  was  first 
the  so-called  "  Law  of  Holiness,"  comprising  Lev. 
xvii.-xxvi.  Next  comes  a  group  consisting  of  Exod. 
xii.,  xxv.-xxxi.,  Lev.  i.-xvii.,  xxiv.,  xxvii.,  and  most  of 
the  priestly  portions  in  Numbers.  From  both  is  still 
distinguished  a  third  group  containing  later  additions. 

I.  To  this  whole  scheme  we  must,  first  of  all, 
object  the  lack  of  all  positive  evidence,  that  the  work 
of  codifying  ritual  law  was  carried  on  in  Babylon  on 


254         ^^^^    PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

such  a  grand  scale.  Where  do  the  least  traces 
appear  in  Ezekiel,  Deutero-Isaiah,  Haggai,  Zecha- 
riah,  the  Book  of  Ezra,  and  of  Nehemiah,  we  do  not 
say  of  the  completion  of  the  process  (for  this  simply 
begs  the  whole  question),  but  of  the  tendencies  that 
I  originated  or  the  influences  that  favored  and  ripened 
it? 

But  more  than  this.  If  we  realize  the  situation 
well,  we  cannot  but  doubt  tiie  critics'  assumption, 
that  in  the  circles  that  remained  at  Babylon  when 
the  first  colony  set  out  for  Jerusalem,  there  was 
enough  of  productive  energy  to  create  all  at  once 
what  centuries  had  not  been  able  to  produce  when 
the  nation  was  still  prosperous  and  independent,  and 
the  temple-service  flourishing  and  in  high  esteem. 

First  of  all,  the  better  element  must  have  joined 
Zerubbabel  and  Joshua.  Those  who  remained  were 
certainly  the  least  influenced  by  theocratic  concern 
in  the  restoration  of  the  temple-worship  and  the  re- 
possession of  the  holy  city.  Ezra  i.  5  states  that 
those  whose  spirit  God  had  raised,  went  up  to  build 
the  house  of  the  Lord.  The  rest  seem  to  have  been 
on  the  whole  indifferent,  and  to  have  preferred  the 
riches  of  Babylon  to  the  wants  and  dangers  of  the 
little  caravan  that  set  its  face  towards  Jerusalem. 

Secondly,  the  majority  of  the  priesthood  returned, 
and  comparatively  a  small  number  of  priests  remained 
in  Babylon.  The  priests  were  least  of  all  likely  to 
prefer  captivity  in  a  polluted  land  to  a  relative  free- 
dom in  the  holy  city.  And  what  adds  a  decisive 
weight  to  this,  is  the  fact  that  not  less  than  four 
thousand  priests  joined  the  expedition  of  Zerubbabel ; 


SECOND  KINGS  XXI L   AND   NEH.    VIII -X.      255 

and  with  Ezra  there  went  only  two  priestly  families, 
which  cannot  have  been  very  numerous  (Ezra  viii.  2). 

We  have  the  indisputable  facts  that  the  theocratic 
element  left  Babylon,  and  that  amongst  the  worldly 
remnant,  there  was  only  a  comparatively  small  num- 
ber of  priests,  and  these  so  indifferent  to  the  land 
and  people  of  God,  that  only  two  of  their  families 
were  induced  to  return  under  Ezra's  protection. 

Now,  the  critics  wish  us  to  believe  two  facts  which 
strangely  contrast  with  the  two  we  have  just  stated  : 
I.  That  among  the  better  element,  which  rebuilt 
Jerusalem  and  the  temple,  and  restored  its  service, 
there  was  a  development  for  the  worse  in  an  anti- 
theocratic  direction.  2.  That  anions:  the  remnant 
in  Babylon,  who  had  no  temple  amongst  them,  and 
evidently  no  intentions  of  ever  returning,  there  was 
such  an  interest  awakened  in  the  temple-service, 
that  a  long  literary  activity  ensued,  which  resulted 
in  the  production  of  a  complete  elaborated  Code, 
called  by  the  modern  critics  the  Priest  Code. 

This  demand  upon  our  credulity  is  most  unreason- 
able. The  view  contradicts  all  historic  probability. 
That  it  is  so  boldly  and  persistently  maintained,  is 
due  to  the  fact,  that,  where  historical  records  fail, 
critical  ingenuity  is  at  liberty  to  fill  up  the  blank 
with  any  picture  of  the  imagination  whatever. 

Dr.  Kuenen  has  felt  this  difficulty  very  seriously. 
He  tries  to  remove  it  in  his  own  peculiar  way,  by  a 
number  of  considerations,  which  v/ould  have  force  to 
convince  us  if  we  could  grant  the  premises  on  which 
they  rest.  That  the  Jews  were  eagerly  looking  for 
a  future,  more  favorable,  occasion  to  return,  we  will 


256  THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

have  to  believe  when  it  is  proved.  Why  had  they  not 
joined  the  expedition  which  departed  under  such  au- 
spicious circumstances,  witli  the  favor  and  protection 
of  Cyrus,  in  direct  fulfilment  of  ancient  prophecies, 
those  of  Jeremiah  at  least,  to  leave  Deutero-Isaiah 
out  of  view  ?  That  they  were  desirous  of  religious 
instruction,  may  be  admitted  in  a  general  sense  ;  but 
their  attitude  does  not  exhibit  interest  in  that  aspect 
of  the  Jewish  religion  which  was  inseparable  from 
the  sanctuary.  When  afterwards  men  like  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah  arose  amongst  them,  their  character  was 
not  the  fruit  of  the  natural  state  of  affairs,  but 
rather  a  new  factor  introduced  by  a  special  divine 
intervention  to  provide  for  a  special  need  of  God's 
people.  The  inferences  which  Kuenen  draws  from 
Zech.  vi.  9-15  are  entirely  too  sweeping.  That  a 
few  men  had  come  from  Babylon,  whose  arrival  is 
evidently  stated  as  an  exceptional  case,  cannot  be 
made  to  prove  that  the  great  body  of  the  exiles 
entertained  a  lively  interest  in  what  happened  at 
Jerusalem, 

The  main  objection  against  the  whole  scheme  lies 
in  its  impracticability.  Here,  as  in  the  case  of  Deu- 
teronomy, the  question  recurs.  What  made  it  neces- 
sary for  Ezra  to  ascribe  his  laws  to  Moses  }  What 
accounts  for  the  element  of  fraud  entering  this  piece 
of  Jewish  legislation  also,  as  we  are  asked  to  believe } 

Critics  answer,  when  Ezra  arrived  at  Jerusalem, 
he  found  the  colonists  far  below  his  ideal  of  right- 
eous Israelites.  After  a  first  successful  attempt  at 
reform,  Ezra  is  silent  for  thirteen  years.  The  reasons 
for  this  interruption  were  chiefly  twofold,      i.   He  saw 


SECOND   KINGS  XXII.    AND   NEIL    VIII.-X.      25/ 

the  necessity  of  adapting  his  law,  formed  in  Babylon, 
to  the  circumstances  of  the  people.  2.  He  must 
have  met  already  in  his  first  reform,  as  well  as  after- 
wards, with  a  strong  and  influential  opposition,  as 
appears  from  Neh.  xiii.  and  Malachi's  prophecy.  It 
was  in  part  the  zelotic  spirit,  which  both  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah  manifested,  partly  more  material  objec- 
tions against  their  innovations,  which  led  to  this 
resistance.  The  reform  involved  a  limitation  of  lib- 
erty, imposed  heavy  duties  upon  the  laymen,  and  on 
the  whole  showed  a  decidedly  hierarchical  tendency. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  bound  the  priests  themselves 
henceforward  to  a  written  word,  and  thus  essentially 
modified  their  position.  Such  a  radical  revolution 
did  not  fail  to  cause  a  strong  re-action,  both  from 
among  the  people  and  the  priesthood.  Hence  the 
claim  of  Mosaic  origin  for  the  Code  was  absolutely 
necessary  to  the  success  of  Ezra's  plans. 

So  we  meet  here  again  with  the  same  remarkable 
phenomena  as  in  the  case  of  Deuteronomy.  There 
it  was  ''the  people  stood  to  the  Covenant."  Here 
they  make  a  sure  covenant,  write  it,  and  seal  unto  it 
(Neh.  ix.  38).  And  in  both  cases  alike  the  opposi- 
tion is  silent,  no  word  of  resistance  is  uttered,  no 
murmuring  or  dissenting  voice  heard.  The  ques- 
tion recurs  here  as  there  :  How  was  this  possible, 
if  Ezra's  Thora  was  a  mere  fiction  t  If  it  was  genu- 
ine and  Mosaic,  we  can  understand  why  the  opponents 
desisted.  But  suppose  them  to  have  been  fully  on 
their  guard,  to  have  watched  Ezra's  every  move- 
ment, to  have  kept  him  in  suspense  for  thirteen 
years,  and  then  finally  to  have  accepted  in  the  most 


258  THE   PEXTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

meek  and  submissive  way  the  most  radical  changes, 
contrary  to  their  own  opinions  and  interests,  simply 
because  Ezra  pretended  that  his  law  was  Mosaic  ! 

The  story  sounds  incredible,  and  still  we  must 
believe  it  if  the  critics  are  right.  We  can  the  less 
conceive  that  the  opponents  were  misled  on  this 
occasion  by  the  appearances,  since,  as  we  have  seen, 
the  Priest  Code  was  already  combined  with  the 
Jehovistic  and  Deuteronomic  laws,  and  was  read 
together  with  them.  What  appears  as  an  addition, 
and  in  so  far  modifies  the  old,  is,  per  sc,  exposed  to 
suspicion.  Still,  Ezra's  Code  was  not  suspected  ; 
the  people  made  a  sure  covenant,  and  sealed  unto  it. 

It  would  certainly  seem  safer,  in  view  of  all  these 
impossibilities,  to  adhere  to  the  old  notion,  be  it 
traditional  or  not,  that  Ezra  published  the  Thora  in 
no  other  capacity  than  that  of  a  ready  scribe,  who 
had  prepared  his  heart  to  seek  the  law  of  the  Lord, 
and  to  do  it,  and  to  teach  in  Israel  statutes  and 
judgments  ;  that  he  did  this  at  a  special  occasion  of 
the  feast  of  trumpets,  at  a  special  request  of  the 
people,  who  expressed  by  this  desire  their  gratitude 
for  the  final  completion  of  the  walls  of  Jerusalem 
under  the  supervision  of  Nehemiah. 


DID   MOSES    WRITE    THE  LAWS?  259 


CHAPTER    XXI. 

DID   MOSES   WRITE  THE   LAWS? 

WE  have  hitherto  occupied  ourselves  exclusively 
with  the  question  whether  the  claim  of  Mosaic 
origin  which  the  Codes  make  for  themselves  could 
be  vindicated.  A  few  remarks  may  be  added  now 
with  regard  to  the  related  question  whether  Moses 
committed  the  laws  to  writinsr. 

That  only  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  and  the  Deu- 
teronomic  Code  are  expressly  stated  to  have  been 
written  by  Moses,  was  remarked  on  a  previous  page. 
It  will  be  necessary  to  keep  in  mind  what  was  argued 
there,  that  these  emphatic  statements  with  reference 
to  a  part  can  never  disprove  the  view  that  Moses 
wrote  the  whole. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  it  could  be  shown  that  Moses 
wrote  only  these  parts  of  the  legislation,  this  would 
not  contradict  the  statements  of  the  Pentateuch  it- 
self. Caution  is  more  than  anywhere  else  required 
on  this  point  of  the  discussion.  The  fact  is  remark- 
able, that  all  parts  of  the  Pentateuch,  of  which  it  is 
expressly  said  that  Moses  zvrote  thou,  are  Jehovistic- 
Deuteronomic,  have  one  common  style,  and  are  of  the 
same  prophetic  character.  Even  if  the  critics  could 
settle  it  beyond  doubt  that   the  writer  of  the  Priest 


260         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

Code  Avas  not  the  same  with  the  author  of  the  Book 
of  the  Covenant  and  of  Deuteronomy,  still  the  state- 
ments of  the  Pentateuch  concerning  its  own  origin 
would  stand  untouched. 

Doubts  have  repeatedly  been  expressed  whether 
the  art  of  writing  was  known  among  the  Semitic 
peoples,  and  among  the  Israelites  in  particular,  during 
the  Mosaic  age  (compare  Reuss,  Geschichte  des  A. 
T.,  §  yG).  In  general,  however,  the  possibility,  and 
even  probability,  of  this  knowledge  at  that  time  are 
now  recognized.  Dr.  Kuenen  says,  "That  the  Isra- 
elites possessed  an  alphabet,  and  knew  the  art  of 
writing,  in  the  Mosaic  age,  is  not  subject  to  reason- 
able doubt,  and  now  almost  universally  admitted." 
The  objection  which  he  raises  against  an  extensive 
practice  of  the  arts  of  reading  and  writing  among 
the  Israelites  from  their  more  frequent  mention  in 
Deuteronomy  than  in  the  middle  books,  has  since 
then  lost  all  its  power,  because  Dr.  Kuenen  himself 
at  present  assigns  the  priority  to  Deuteronomy. 

The  Greeks  received  their  knowledge  of  the  art  of 
writing  from  Semitic  colonists.  But  whence  did  the 
Semitic  tribes  obtain  this  knowledge  }  Two  answers 
have  been  given  to  this  question.  Until  recently, 
many  favored  the  derivation  of  the  Semitic  alphabet 
from  Babylon  or  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  of  As- 
syria. At  present,  however,  the  opinion  seems  to 
prevail  among  Egyptologists,  that  the  alphabet  came 
from  Egypt  to  the  Semites,  and  was  transferred  by 
them  to  the  Greeks,  and  farther  West. 

Dr.  Taylor,  a  recent  writer  on  this  subject,  says 
(I.  p.  133),  "It  is   proved  beyond   controversy  (from 


DID   MOSES    WRITE    THE   LAWS?  26 1 

the  Moabite  stone),  that  the  Semitic  alphabet  was 
fully  developed  and  established  as  early  as  the  begin- 
ning of  the  ninth  century  ;  while,  to  the  practised  eye 
of  the  palaeographer,  it  also  indicates  that  alphabetic 
writing  must  have  been  in  familiar  use  for  a  very 
considerable  precedent  period"  (compare  also  Ewald's 
"History  of  Israel,"  I.  p.  52,  seqq). 

On  another  page  (p.  139),  Dr.  Taylor  sums  up  his  "A 
conclusion  from  the  facts  in  this   statement  :  "  The    J 
external  evidence  connects  in  an  unmistakable  man-^ 
ner  the  date  of  the  origin  of  the  alphabet  with   Xh^ 
period  of  the  sojourn  of  Israel  in  Egypt." 

Reconstructive  criticism  is  ready  to  combine  with 
the  denial  of  the  historical  character  of  the  Penta- 
teuch its  own  hypothetical  conception  of  the  primi- 
tive state  of  Israel  during  the  sojourn  in  Egypt  and 
the  journey  in  the  desert.  We  are  reminded  over 
and  over  again,  that  the  Jews  were  a  wild  nomad-tribe 
possessing  only  the  first  germs  of  civilization.  This 
view,  it  must  be  remembered,  rests  on  no  historical 
grounds  whatever.  According  to  the  Pentateuch, 
not  only  was  Moses  instructed  in  all  the  wisdom  of 
Egypt,  but  also  the  Israelites,  as  a  whole,  became 
from  nomads  a  settled  people  being  influenced  by 
Egyptian  civilization.  They  dwelt  in  houses,  not  by 
themselves,  but  among  the  Egyptians,  sustained 
friendly  relations  to  the  latter,  and  adopted  most  of 
their  arts.  When  we  consider  how  easily  the  Jews 
have  at  all  times  assimilated  the  elements  of  foreign 
civilization,  it  admits  no  longer  of  any  doubt,  that,  at 
the  time  of  the  exodus,  they  were  something  entirely 
different    from    the    nomad-tribes    imagined    by    the 


262         THE   PENTATEUCHAL    CODES  MOSAIC. 

critics.  Tliere  is  no  ground,  accordingly,  for  making 
a  distinction,  as  Reuss  does,  between  Moses  and  the 
other  Israehtes,  as  if  the  former  had  been  the  only 
cultured  person  amongst  them,  and  the  rest  an  un- 
civilized horde. 

It  makes  no  difference  whether  we  assume  with 
Ewald  and  De  Rouge  that  the  Semitic  alphabet  was 
transmitted  from  the  Hyksos  to  the  Phoenicians,  or 
suppose  with  Lenormant  and  Sayce  that  the  reverse 
took  place  :  the  fact  is  firmly  established,  that  the 
Hebrews,  before  their  exodus,  had  an  alphabet  ;  and, 
as  Ewald  says,  ''  We  need  not  scruple  to  assume  that 
Israel  knew  and  used  it  in  Egypt  before  Moses." 

That  the  Egyptian  priests  were  accustomed  to 
write  their  laws  and  sanitary  prescriptions,  is  well 
known.  Diodorus  says  that  the  physicians  belonged 
to  the  priestly  class,  received  their  salary  from  the 
government,  and  were  bound  in  their  treatment  of 
diseases  by  a  written  law  made  up  by  many  of  the 
most  famous  of  old  doctors. 

Abstractly,  it  is  not  impossible  to  suppose  that 
even  such  comprehensive  laws  as  the  Priest  Code 
contains  might  have  been  orally  transmitted  in 
priestly  circles.  Perhaps  the  hypothesis  might 
account  for  a  gradual  development  of  law  consistent 
with  a  germinal  or  substantial  Mosaic  origin.  But 
in  view  of  the  course  of  Hebrew  history  with  its 
numerous  relapses,  as  in  the  days  of  Eli,  Ahab,  Ahaz, 
Manasseh,  and  at  other  critical  points,  the  preserva- 
tion of  a  traditionary  Code  would  be  scarcely  less 
tjian  a  miracle.     The  fate  of  Deuteronomy  suggests 


DID   MOSES    WRITE    THE  LAWS?  263 

what  might  have  become  of  a  law  existing  only  in 
the  mouth  of  an  apostate  priesthood. 

To  this,  two  other  considerations  may  be  added. 
We  have  explicit  testimony  that  the  Covenant-law 
w^as  written  in  a  book,  and  the  Decalogue  on  tables 
of  stone.  To  assume  a  codification  of  the  priestly 
laws  is  simply  to  argue  from  analogy,  or  rather  a 
fortiori ;  for  if  the  people  had  their  Code,  much  more 
the  priests,  whose  lips  should  keep  knowledge,  and 
at  whose  mouth  one  should  seek  the  law. 

Finally,  we  learn  that  in  his  last  days  it  was 
Moses'  chief  concern  to  write  down  the  Deuter- 
onomic  discourses.  The  end  testifies  to  the  whole. 
We  may  expect,  if  he  took  care  to  fix  the  Deuter- 
onomic  Code  in  written  form,  and  thus  solemnly 
bound  the  people  by  a  permanent  allegiance  to  God, 
that  he  at  the  same  time  would  protect  them  against 
oppression  on  the  part  of  the  priesthood,  which 
wielded  such  extraordinary  influence  in  Egypt.  This 
could  be  done  in  no  better  way  than  by  codifying 
and  publishing  the  divinely  authenticated  rule,  by 
which  both  priesthood  and  people  would  be  bound  in 
the  future. 

So  far,  therefore,  as  inherent  probability  goes,  we 
must  accept,  together  with  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the 
Pentateuchal  Codes,  the  view  that  they  were  written 
either  by  Moses,  or  by  others  under  his  direction  and 
superintendence. 


DATE  DUE 

^un  \ .  -^ 

inwmi- 

JUh  UU  "T^ 

»!» 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S.A. 

^gr;- 


BS1225.4.V95C.2  ,    , 

The  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Pentateuchal 

Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00012  1808 


